U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

64–635

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106TH CONGRESS

2d Session

REPORT

2000

106–644

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001

REPORT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 4576]

JUNE 1, 2000.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Bill Totals ................................................................................................................. 1

Committee Budget Review Process ........................................................................ 3

Committee Recommendations by Major Category ................................................ 3

Active Military Personnel ................................................................................ 3

Guard and Reserve Personnel ......................................................................... 3

Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................ 3

Procurement ...................................................................................................... 3

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation ............................................... 4

Items of Special Committee Interest ...................................................................... 4

Military Health Care and Medical Research Programs ................................ 4

Information Assurance and Computer Network Security ............................. 5

Ballistic Missile Defense Programs ................................................................. 6

Tactical Fighter Aviation Issues ..................................................................... 7

Army Transformation ....................................................................................... 9

Forces to be Supported ............................................................................................ 14

Department of the Army .................................................................................. 14

Department of the Navy .................................................................................. 15

Department of the Air Force ........................................................................... 16

TITLE I. MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................... 19

Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations ..... 19

Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2001 ... 19

Adjustments to Military Personnel Account .................................................. 21

End Strength Adjustments ....................................................................... 21

Unobligated/Unexpended Military Personnel Balances ......................... 21

Unfunded Requirements ........................................................................... 21

Basic Allowance for Housing .................................................................... 22

Guard and Reserve Forces ........................................................................ 22

Full-Time Support Strengths ................................................................... 22

Military Personnel, Army ................................................................................ 23

Military Personnel, Navy ................................................................................. 25

Active Navy Manning ............................................................................... 27

Military Personnel, Marine Corps ................................................................... 27

Military Personnel, Air Force .......................................................................... 29

Reserve Personnel, Army ................................................................................. 31

Reserve Personnel, Navy ................................................................................. 33

Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps ................................................................... 35

Reserve Personnel, Air Force .......................................................................... 37

Air Force Reserve Manning ...................................................................... 39

National Guard Personnel, Army .................................................................... 39

Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams .............................. 41

Guard and Reserve Workyear Requirements ......................................... 41

National Guard Personnel, Air Force ............................................................. 41

TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .............................................. 45

Operation and Maintenance Overview ........................................................... 48

Real Property Maintenance ...................................................................... 48

Depot Maintenance ................................................................................... 49

Soldier Support Equipment ...................................................................... 49

Junior ROTC .............................................................................................. 49

Field Maintenance and Logistical Support ............................................. 50

War Reserve and Prepositioned Materiels .............................................. 50

Headquarters and Administrative Expenses .......................................... 50

Acquisition Program Growth .................................................................... 51

DFAS Program Growth ............................................................................. 51

NATO and Overseas Staff Growth .......................................................... 51

Page

IV

Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data ............................. 51

Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings ....................................... 52

Public Transit Vouchers ........................................................................... 53

Recruiting and Advertising ...................................................................... 53

Operation and Maintenance, Army ................................................................. 53

Medium General Purpose Tents .............................................................. 57

Tactical Missile Maintenance ................................................................... 57

Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne (MOTBY) ......................................... 58

Night Training Safety ‘‘Light Sticks’’ ...................................................... 58

Distance Learning—CCCE ....................................................................... 58

Operation and Maintenance, Navy ................................................................. 58

Navy Aviation Depot Maintenance Apprentice Program ....................... 61

Man Overboard Indicator ......................................................................... 61

UNOLS ....................................................................................................... 62

Naval Sea Cadet Program ........................................................................ 62

USNS Hayes Relocation ............................................................................ 62

Center for Civil-Military Relations .......................................................... 62

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps ................................................... 62

Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment (MOLLE) .................. 64

Civilian Personnel Separation .................................................................. 64

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force .......................................................... 64

C–5 Spare Parts ........................................................................................ 67

Air Force Cargo Distribution Hub ........................................................... 67

Displaying Retired Aircraft ...................................................................... 68

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................................................... 68

Beryllium Work-Related Illnesses ........................................................... 70

DoD Schools ............................................................................................... 70

Family Advocacy ........................................................................................ 71

Youth Development and Leadership Program ........................................ 71

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve .................................................. 71

Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve ................................................... 73

Fort Worth Naval Air Station .................................................................. 75

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve ..................................... 75

NBC Defense Equipment .......................................................................... 77

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ............................................ 77

March Air Reserve Base ........................................................................... 79

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard ..................................... 79

National Emergency and Disaster Information Center ......................... 81

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard ......................................... 81

C–130 Operations ...................................................................................... 83

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund ......................................... 83

Budget Justification and Budget Execution Materials .......................... 83

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces .................................. 83

Environmental Restoration, Army .................................................................. 84

Environmental Restoration, Navy ................................................................... 84

Environmental Restoration, Air Force ............................................................ 84

Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide .................................................... 84

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites .......................... 84

Nike Battery 55 ......................................................................................... 85

Santa Clarita ............................................................................................. 85

Newmark .................................................................................................... 85

Depleted Uranium Environmental Restoration ...................................... 85

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid .......................................... 85

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction ......................................................... 86

Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense ......................................................... 86

TITLE III. PROCUREMENT .............................................................................. 87

Estimates and Appropriations Summary ....................................................... 87

Special Interest Items ............................................................................... 89

Classified Programs .................................................................................. 89

Communication Systems Upgrades ......................................................... 89

Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Vehicles .................................. 89

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 89

Kiowa Warrior Live-Fire Testing ............................................................. 90

Ground Proximity Warning System ......................................................... 90

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 93

Short Range Air Defense Modernization ................................................. 93

Javelin ........................................................................................................ 93

Page

V

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army .................. 96

Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge ............................................................. 96

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ................................................................ 98

Ammunition Management ........................................................................ 98

Sense and Destroy Armor Munition ........................................................ 99

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 101

Up-Armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles ............... 103

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 107

Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS) ............. 107

EP–3 Modernization .................................................................................. 108

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 110

Joint Stand-Off Weapon ............................................................................ 110

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps ................................. 113

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 115

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 117

Aviation Requirement for Joint Tactical Terminals ............................... 118

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 122

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 125

F–15 ............................................................................................................ 126

C–17 Advance Procurement ..................................................................... 126

F–15 Modifications .................................................................................... 126

F–16 Modifications .................................................................................... 127

Miscellaneous Production Charges .......................................................... 127

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 131

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ......................................................... 133

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 135

Next Generation Small Loader ................................................................ 136

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 139

National Guard and Reserve Equipment ....................................................... 142

Defense Production Act Purchases .................................................................. 142

Microwave Power Tubes ........................................................................... 142

Information Technology ................................................................................... 142

Information Assurance and Computer Network Security ...................... 143

Information Technology Oversight ........................................................... 144

Defense Joint Accounting System (DJAS) ............................................... 144

Navy Marine Corps Intranet .................................................................... 144

Information Security Lessons Learned .................................................... 145

Army High Performance Computing Research Center .......................... 145

Information Technology Center ................................................................ 146

National Guard Bureau Fiber Optic Study ............................................. 146

Global Infrastructure Data Capture Program ........................................ 146

TITLE IV. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION .... 147

Estimates and Appropriation Summary ......................................................... 147

Special Interest Items ............................................................................... 147

Classified Programs .................................................................................. 147

Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan ........................................................... 147

Tactical Radios .......................................................................................... 148

Networking of Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Assets ........ 148

Joint Ejection Seat Program .................................................................... 148

Discoverer II .............................................................................................. 150

Use of Special Access-Like Security Measures to Protect Business

Sensitive Information ............................................................................ 150

Budgeting for Operational Test ................................................................ 151

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army .................................... 151

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) ............................................................. 156

RDT&E Management Support ........................................................................ 156

Rand Arroyo Center .................................................................................. 156

Excalibur (XM–982) .................................................................................. 156

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy ..................................... 161

DD–21 Next Generation Surface Combatant .......................................... 165

Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP) ..................................................... 167

Network Centric Warfare (NCW) ............................................................. 167

Navy, Marine Corps Imagery Processing Exploitation .......................... 167

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVS) ......................................................... 168

Bone Marrow Registry .............................................................................. 168

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force .............................. 173

Radiation Hardened Electronics .............................................................. 176

Page

VI

Air Traffic Control, Approach, and Landing System .............................. 176

High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (HAE UAV)-

Global Hawk ........................................................................................... 177

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ...................... 181

Arms Control Technology ......................................................................... 184

High Performance Computing Program .................................................. 185

National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) .................................... 185

Still-Image Compression Standard .......................................................... 185

Competitive Practices ............................................................................... 185

Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense ............................................... 189

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................................................... 189

TITLE V. REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS ................................ 191

Defense Working Capital Funds ..................................................................... 191

National Defense Sealift Fund ........................................................................ 191

Ready Reserve Force ................................................................................. 191

TITLE VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS ............... 193

Defense Health Program .................................................................................. 193

Special Interest Items ............................................................................... 193

TRICARE Improvements .......................................................................... 194

Transfer of Defense Health Program Funds ........................................... 194

Anthrax Vaccine Program ........................................................................ 195

Chiropractic Demonstration Program ...................................................... 195

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army ..................................... 195

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ............................. 196

DoD Support to Plan Colombia ................................................................ 196

Tethered Aerostat Radar System ............................................................. 197

Office of the Inspector General ........................................................................ 197

TITLE VII. RELATED AGENCIES .................................................................... 199

National Foreign Intelligence Program .......................................................... 199

Introduction ............................................................................................... 199

Classified Annex ........................................................................................ 199

Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund ........ 199

Intelligence Community Management Account ............................................. 200

Payment to Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund ............................................................................. 200

National Security Education Trust Fund ....................................................... 200

TITLE VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................. 203

Definition of Program, Project and Activity ................................................... 203

House of Representatives Reporting Requirements .............................................. 203

Changes in the Application of Existing Law .................................................. 204

Appropriations Language ......................................................................... 204

General Provisions .................................................................................... 206

Appropriations Not Authorized by Law .......................................................... 208

Transfer of Funds ............................................................................................. 210

Rescissions ........................................................................................................ 211

Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule) ............................ 211

Constitutional Authority .................................................................................. 211

Comparison with the Budget Resolution ........................................................ 212

Five-Year Outlay Projections ........................................................................... 212

Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments ................................. 212

Full Committee Votes ...................................................................................... 212

Additional Views ............................................................................................... 224

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–644

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001

JUNE 1, 2000.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. LEWIS of California, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 4576]

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the

Department of Defense, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 2001.

BILL TOTALS

Appropriations for most military functions of the Department of

Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill for the fiscal

year 2001. This bill does not provide appropriations for military

construction, military family housing, civil defense, or nuclear warheads, for which requirements are considered in connection with

other appropriations bills.

The President’s fiscal year 2001 budget request for activities

funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals

$284,520,572,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The

amounts recommended by the Committee in the accompanying bill

total $288,512,800,000 in new budget authority. This is

$3,992,228,000 above the budget estimate and $19,805,014,000

above the sums made available for the Department of Defense for

fiscal year 2000.

2

3

COMMITTEE BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS

During its review of the fiscal year 2001 budget, the Subcommittee on Defense held a total of 13 hearings during the period

of February 2000 to March 2000. Testimony received by the Subcommittee totaled 1,408 pages of transcript. Approximately half of

the hearings were held in open session. Executive (closed) sessions

were held only when the security classification of the material to

be discussed presented no alternative.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MAJOR CATEGORY

ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL

The Committee recommends a total of $65,098,288,000 for active

military personnel, a net increase of $51,800,000 above the budget

request. The Committee supports the budget request which proposed a 3.7 percent pay raise for military personnel effective January 1, 2001. The Committee also agrees with the authorized end

strength as requested in the President’s budget, and has included

$18,500,000 for additional Navy recruiters and Navy force structure manning.

GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL

The Committee recommends a total of $10,805,928,000, a net increase of $50,750,000 above the budget request for Guard and Reserve personnel. The Committee agrees with the authorized end

strength as requested in the President’s budget for the Selected Reserve, and has included $37,500,000 to provide for additional fulltime support personnel for the Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Army National Guard. The Committee has also included funds for the proposed 3.7 percent pay

raise.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The Operation and Maintenance appropriation provides for the

readiness of U.S. forces as well as the maintenance of facilities and

equipment, the infrastructure that supports combat forces, and the

quality of life of service members and their families. The Committee recommends $97,507,228,000, a net increase of

$1,227,115,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget request. This increase is driven primarily by the need to address shortfalls in funding for infrastructure repairs and maintenance, depot level maintenance, basic soldier support equipment, field level maintenance and

logistical support, and shortages of sustainment stocks. The Committee also recommends reductions from the budget request as the

result of fact of life changes and management actions the Department of Defense should undertake to streamline its operations.

PROCUREMENT

The Committee recommends $61,558,679,000 for programs funded in Title III of the Committee bill, Procurement, a net increase

of $2,292,076,000 to the fiscal year 2001 budget request. Included

in these totals is $2,452,551,000 for procurement of National Guard

and Reserve equipment, a net increase of $622,651,000 above the

budget request.

4

Major programs funded in the bill include:

$183,371,000 for 17 UH–60 Blackhawk helicopters.

$709,454,000 for Apache Longbow modifications.

$372,248,000 for 3,754 Javelin anti-tank missiles.

$285,363,000 for 2,200 Hellfire missiles.

$188,689,000 for 66 MLRS launcher systems.

$440,689,000 for Bradley fighting vehicle industrial base

sustainment.

$1,200,077,000 for the Medium armored vehicle family.

$338,422,000 for the Abrams tank upgrade program.

$2,818,533,000 for 42 F/A–18E/F fighter aircraft.

$1,128,592,000 for 16 Marine Corps V–22 aircraft.

$231,118,000 for 3 KC–130J aircraft.

$433,932,000 for 12 Trident II ballistic missiles.

$4,053,653,000 for the CVN–77 aircraft carrier.

$1,198,012,000 for 1 New Attack Submarine.

$2,703,559,000 for 3 DDG–51 Destroyers.

$348,951,000 for 1 ADC(X) ship.

$2,149,882,000 for 10 F–22 fighter aircraft.

$400,000,000 for 5 F–15 fighter aircraft.

$2,185,823,000 for 12 C–17 airlift aircraft.

$250,610,000 for 1 JSTARS aircraft.

$380,232,000 for C–135 modifications.

$219,848,000 for 9,098 JDAM munitions.

$2,357,943,000 for ammunition for all services.

$433,962,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

The Committee recommends $40,170,230,000 for programs funded in Title IV of the Committee bill, Research, Development, Test

and Evaluation, an increase of $2,307,829,000 to the fiscal year

2001 budget request. Major programs funded in the bill include: $614,041,000 for the Comanche helicopter.

$355,309,000 for the Crusader artillery program.

$706,000,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter program.

$257,274,000 for the DD–21 next generation destroyer.

$1,411,786,000 for F–22 development.

$145,313,000 for B–2 development.

$569,188,000 for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High.

$332,952,000 for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.

$4,111,408,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE INTEREST

MILITARY HEALTH CARE AND MEDICAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS

The Committee continues to emphasize support for and oversight

of defense health care and medical research programs. The Committee recommends total funding for the Defense Health Program

of $12,143,029,000, an increase of $988,412,000 over the enacted

fiscal year 2000 level (a one year increase of nearly nine percent),

and $542,600,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget request. In addition, appropriations for other medical programs in this bill, fundVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR644.000 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
5

ed in accounts other than the Defense Health Program appropriation cited above, are recommended to receive increases above the

budget request totaling nearly $400,000,000.

The funds provided above the budget request include $280,600,000 to implement the health care enhancements recently

approved by the House in the National Defense Authorization Act

for fiscal year 2001 (H.R. 4205), which are targeted to achieve improved access to care for service members, their dependents, and

the retired military community. The Committee bill also includes

additions over the budget request totaling $638,830,000 for medical

research programs, including $175,000,000 for the peer-reviewed

breast cancer research program and $75,000,000 for the peer-reviewed prostate cancer research program (both managed by the Department of the Army).

Consistent with findings resulting from its fiscal year 2001 budget review hearings, the Committee also recommends general provisions intended to give the Department greater flexibility in the execution of its managed care contracts, as well as requirements that

the Secretary of Defense more fully monitor and report to Congress

on issues associated with the execution of those contracts, in particular cost growth in the TRICARE system.

INFORMATION ASSURANCE AND COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY

The fiscal year 2001 budget request generally accelerates the efforts underway within the Department of Defense and the intelligence community to take advantage of rapid advances in information technology. The Committee, as in years past, supports such efforts as the DoD’s ‘‘Revolution in Military Affairs’’ and ‘‘Revolution

in Business Affairs’’ which are largely premised on taking advantage of a growing ability to move and process information.

However, as in society at large, the national security community’s growing use of such technology poses great vulnerabilities as

well. Events of recent weeks have only served to highlight this

problem, with the news dominated by acts by individual hackers

committing computer vandalism. The threats posed by such seemingly random acts—in themselves real—pale in comparison to the

potential dangers posed by those who seek to damage American interests. The range of possibilities runs from those attempting to

discreetly break into systems to steal information, to more active

measures intended to destroy or disable information networks in

order to damage U.S. military and intelligence capabilities, perhaps

in connection with a real world conflict.

The Committee believes that a concerted, focused effort is needed

to protect key information systems, not only by those within the

national security community but at all levels of government. The

Committee commends the DoD for the efforts it has already initiated in this regard, which among other things includes taking advantage of lessons learned from the Year 2000 computer problem.

Nevertheless, it is the Committee’s belief that much more needs to

be done in this arena.

The Committee is well aware that the complexity of this problem

does not lend itself to a ‘‘silver bullet’’ solution. A more appropriate

response is a broad approach intended to create a ‘‘defense-indepth’’, with multiple levels of protection and avoidance of any single point of failure. Drawing on testimony from experts in the DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR644.000 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
6

partment of Defense, the FBI, industry and academia, the Committee therefore recommends increases over the budget request totaling $150,000,000, targeted at addressing the most serious

vulnerabilities in the Department’s information infrastructure.

These funds are directed towards specific objectives, including increased monitoring of DoD networks; enhanced protection of military communications; additional training for DoD personnel; and

increasing the Department’s knowledge of its vulnerabilities. The

funding allocations include:

$36,000,000 to purchase hardware and software applications to

monitor computer networks for suspicious activity;

$35,000,000 for new digital secure phones to replace the outdated

STU-III;

$20,000,000 to ensure security capabilities are built into new cell

phones, rather than retrofitting them later at a significantly higher

cost;

$18,600,000 to accelerate the DoD’s Public Key Infrastructure

(PKI) program;

$15,000,000 for information security awareness, education and

training;

$12,100,000 for an effects-based evaluation of a computer network attack on information systems and processes;

$10,300,000 for an assessment of the physical and cyber

vulnerabilities of militarily-critical DoD and commercial infrastructures; and

$3,000,000 for additional basic (6.1) research into information assurance.

Specific program details associated with this initiative are noted

throughout this report and are summarized in the Information

Technology section under Title III, Procurement. The Committee

directs that those information assurance program elements or

projects receiving funds over the budget request in the Committee

report be designated as items of congressional interest and shall be

so noted on DD Form 1414 (this is to include amounts requested

in the budget request and the additional funding cited above).

The Committee intends that this Information Assurance initiative be the first step in a longer-term effort to increase programmed funding for DoD’s efforts towards securing its information systems and networks. Accordingly, the Committee directs the

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2002 budget submission

which provides details on the planned obligation of these funds, as

well as the funding proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget for information assurance programs.

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS

In light of the growing threat posed to deployed U.S. military

forces, the citizens and territory of the United States, and our allies, the Committee recommends a total of $4,555,370,000 for programs under the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO).

This is a net increase of $168,245,000 over the budget request, and

$738,824,000 above the amounts provided for fiscal year 2000.

Within this amount, the Committee recommends specific funding

allocations for certain key programs as shown below:

7

National Missile Defense:

Procurement .................................................................................... $74,530,000

RDT&E ............................................................................................ $1,740,238,000

Theater High-Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) RDT&E ....................... $549,945,000

Navy Theater-Wide RDT&E ................................................................. $512,671,000

Navy Area RDT&E ................................................................................ $274,234,000

PAC-3:

Procurement .................................................................................... $365,457,000

RDT&E ............................................................................................ $81,016,000

International Cooperative Programs RDT&E ..................................... $116,992,000

TACTICAL FIGHTER AVIATION ISSUES

The Committee, as it noted in its report last year, remains concerned about the developmental challenges and overall costs associated with the current Department of Defense plans to modernize

its tactical fighter inventory. The Committee recognizes the need

and justification for each of the major ongoing tactical fighter modernization programs: the Navy’s F/A–18 E/F fighter; the Air Force’s

F–22 fighter; and the Marine Corps/Air Force/Navy Joint Strike

Fighter. Nevertheless, given the current expense of each of these

programs, and the growing share of the DoD budget they will consume as they move from development into low-rate and then fullscale production, the Committee believes it is absolutely essential

that the DoD insist on a rigorous testing and development process

as well as sound program and cost management for each program.

Absent such controls, the financial ‘‘bow wave’’ associated with tactical fighter modernization, already immense, can only grow—

which could result in either reduced procurement objectives, putting even more pressure on existing, aging assets; or the diversion

of funds from other critical defense needs.

The Committee’s fiscal year 2001 recommendations for each of

these programs are summarized below.

F/A–18 E/F: The Committee recommends $2,818,553,000 for

procurement of 42 aircraft, the number of aircraft requested in the

budget; $101,068,000 in advance procurement, and $248,093,000

for research, development, test and evaluation (the budgeted

amounts).

F–22: The Committee recommends funding the budgeted

amounts for procurement of 10 aircraft ($2,149,882,000), advance

procurement ($396,222,000), and research, development, test and

evaluation ($1,411,786,000).

The Committee continues to believe it is essential the F–22 aircraft receive adequate testing prior to a production decision. Unfortunately, the F–22’s flight test program continues to fall short of

Air Force projections. Between November 1999 and March 2000,

the F–22 program lost an additional nine flight test months. The

Committee is especially concerned about slips in static and fatigue

testing, which are now both more than a year behind schedule. In

a related matter, the Committee has become increasingly convinced

that the congressionally-imposed F–22 development cost cap is forcing the Air Force to reduce or delay the funding for, and planned

scope of, testing in order to accommodate continued cost growth on

the F–22 development contract.

Responding to these concerns, the Committee has included two

general provisions. The first (Section 8116 of the Committee bill)

restates the criteria established in Public Law 106–79 (the DepartVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR644.000 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
8

ment of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000), which prohibits award

of a low-rate production contract for the F–22 until:

(1) first flight of an F–22 aircraft incorporating Block 3.0 software;

(2) certification by the Secretary of Defense that all Defense Acquisition Board exit criteria for award of low-rate production has

been met; and

(3) submission of a report by the Director of Operational Test

and Evaluation assessing the adequacy of the testing to date.

The Committee also proposes Section 8117, which replaces the

existing, individual statutory budget caps on F–22 development

and production with a single, overall cap for the entire program.

This will provide the Air Force greater flexibility to plan, budget,

and execute a sound testing and development program than is currently the case under existing law.

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF): The Joint Strike Fighter is a critically

important program for the Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy. As

currently planned it will be the largest single defense acquisition

program in the history of the DoD. The Committee fully understands the integral part that this program plays in all three Services’ tactical fighter modernization plans. It also believes that the

JSF, should it live up to its technological promise and cost goals,

represents the best option for replacing aging Navy and Marine

Corps F/A–18 and AV–8B fighters, as well as Air Force F–16s. In

short, the Committee wants this program to succeed.

The fiscal year 2001 budget request for JSF was premised on

completion of the program’s concept demonstration/validation

phase by March 2001. By this date, the program was expected to

be ready for transition into engineering and manufacturing development (EMD), to be conducted by one of the two competing contractor teams following a ‘‘winner-take-all’’ source selection decision. However delays in the start of the JSF flight demonstration

program, as well as technical problems which may hinder demonstration of critical JSF design characteristics, have made a

March 2001 completion date for concept demonstration increasingly

unlikely.

Moreover, the Department of Defense has been actively assessing

the effects of the ‘‘winner-take-all’’ acquisition strategy on the defense industrial base. It is possible that the Department may, in

a matter of weeks, announce a revised acquisition strategy involving some degree of teaming or cooperation between what are currently two opposing industrial teams, each with distinctly different

design concepts, hardware, subcontractors and vendor bases.

Should such a revision to the acquisition strategy occur, logic dictates that the JSF development program and budget plan will require adjustments, perhaps even major changes, to those currently

assumed in the fiscal year 2001 budget submission and the existing

Future Years Defense Plan.

The Committee believes Congress must be in a position to carefully consider, and respond if necessary, to any proposed revisions

in the JSF’s acquisition strategy—especially in light of the potential schedule and cost impacts. Additionally, the current JSF program schedule and the fiscal year 2001 budget request both presume a source selection and EMD contract award will be completed

9

by March 2001. As stated above, technical and schedule problems

make it unlikely this milestone will be met.

The Committee also notes that this projected March 2001 date is

just two months into the beginning of a new Administration and

Congress. The Committee believes there must be sufficient time for

the next Administration to formulate its own plans for the JSF in

the context of its own overall defense program. In this regard, a

March 2001 decision point involving a program of this importance

is clearly unrealistic.

Therefore, the Committee recommends the following actions:

(1) The Committee bill includes total fiscal year 2001 funding for

the Joint Strike Fighter of $706,606,000, a net decrease of

$150,000,000 from the budget request. Within this total the Committee has provided $411,101,000 for concept demonstration, an increase of $150,000,000 over the budget request; and $295,502,000

for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD), a decrease

of $300,000,000 from the budget request. These changes have been

allocated to the appropriate program elements in the Navy and Air

Force research, development, test and evaluation accounts. The effect of these changes is to provide sufficient funding to extend the

concept demonstration/validation phase from March to June 2001;

and to delay initiation of entry into the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the JSF program by three months,

from March to June 2001.

(2) To ensure that Congress is kept apprised of the status of the

JSF program, the Committee bill includes a general provision (Section 8118) which requires that 60 days following enactment of the

Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001, the Secretary of

Defense shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees describing what, if any changes have been made to the JSF

acquisition plan as a result of the Secretary’s review of the ‘‘winner-take-all’’ strategy. If applicable, this report shall address any

contemplated changes in the JSF development schedule and funding profile resulting from a revised acquisition strategy. The Secretary is also to report on a number of issues regarding the technical progress made towards achieving planned JSF performance

characteristics.

(3) This provision also requires submission of a similar report

from the next Administration’s Secretary of Defense by March 30,

2001, which will provide Congress with updated information regarding the JSF demonstration phase as well as a detailed explanation of the next Administration’s plans for this program. The

provision also restricts the obligation of funds for the EMD phase

of the JSF program until June 1, 2001, and further conditions the

release of funds on a certification from the Secretary that the JSF

EMD program has been fully funded by each of the participating

services in the Future Years Defense Plan.

ARMY TRANSFORMATION

The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Department of the

Army marks the first year of a 12- to 15-year, $70 billion effort to

transform its Cold War legacy force—designed for a different era

and a different enemy—into a force built on speed, lethality,

versatility, survivability, and sustainability. This ambitious and

10

far-reaching plan, conceived less than a year ago, has become

known as the ‘‘Army Transformation’’ strategy.

Recent operations have clearly shown that, in the wake of a 40

percent reduction in personnel and a 37 percent reduction in buying power over the last decade, and a weapons acquisition process

which has proven to be lacking in many respects, the Army cannot

quickly deploy its heavy forces, and is not optimally equipped or organized to meet the changing demands placed on it in the postCold War era. The Army Chief of Staff has described this problem

succinctly: ‘‘... our heavy forces are too heavy and our light forces

lack staying power.’’ In light of the clearly demonstrated need for the Army to reconfigure itself, and the depth of the commitment to change exhibited

by the Army leadership, the Committee has made the issue of

Army Transformation a major focus of its deliberations in fashioning the fiscal year 2001 Defense Appropriations bill. The Committee took the following issues into consideration.

Past Restructuring Initiatives. The Committee notes that ‘‘Army

transformation’’ is not a new idea. Especially since the end of the

Cold War, different Administrations and different Army leaders

have recognized the need for the Army to adapt to new and different threats. Over the last decade, the Army has undertaken a

variety of restructuring initiatives, large and small. They include

such efforts as the advanced warfighting experiment process,

‘‘Force XXI’’, digitization, the ‘‘Army of Excellence’’, the ‘‘Army After

Next’’, and most recently the Strike Force headquarters concept.

Many of these initiatives have shown some promise, but have regrettably failed to generate sufficient impetus to bring about transforming change to the Army. The reasons for this are varied, including prolonged research and development efforts or extended

and disjointed experimentation programs. Other efforts suffered

from lack of sufficient funding. None had sufficient momentum or

budgetary priority to be completed as originally envisioned.

The consequence of the Army’s having failed in these attempts

to make significant changes were perhaps most pungently summed

up by the then-Deputy Secretary of Defense, John Hamre, who in

August 1999 stated: ‘‘If the Army only holds onto nostalgic versions

of its grand past, it is going to atrophy and die.’’

The New ‘‘Army Vision’’. Within the past year, the Army has responded to this challenge by devising a new strategy, intended to

provide in the near-term an enhanced capability to rapidly deploy

combat power, while laying the foundation for the creation of an

‘‘objective’’ force that is as lethal and survivable as its heavy forces

but as deployable, agile, and versatile as its light forces. The Army

intends to accomplish this through three major initiatives.

‘‘Interim Force’’.—The Army has initiated an aggressive program

to convert a selected number of brigades into 4,000 person interim

brigade combat teams (IBCTs, also referred to as ‘‘new medium brigades’’), intended to bridge the gap between traditional heavy and

light Army forces. The fiscal year 2001 budget contains funding to

begin this process for the first such IBCT. The primary focus of the

‘‘interim force’’ is to make the Army’s light combat formations more

lethal, survivable, and tactically mobile. The transition to interim

force elements will also convert some heavy brigades into lighter

and more agile forces.

11

The IBCTs are specifically designed for employment as early

entry forces that can begin operations immediately upon departure

from the port of debarkation. The mobility goal is to deploy an entire interim brigade by C–17 or C–130 aircraft to a theater twice

as fast as a mechanized brigade (approximately 96 hours with a

dedicated airflow). The Army intends this interim force to provide

the National Command Authority with a better-tailored and more

effective capability for smaller scale contingencies, such as past operations in Grenada, Somalia, Haiti, or current operations in

Kosovo. The Army also contends that this force will improve American combat power for fighting major theater wars (MTW), such as

on the Korean peninsula, especially should the Nation find itself

confronted with a second MTW scenario.

The interim force concept, which is currently estimated to cost

around $600 to $900 million per brigade, centers on acquiring a

family of off-the-shelf, medium weight infantry carrier vehicles and

a new mobile armored gun system. Costs will be refined with the

final selection of interim armored vehicles later this summer.

The current Army budget funds an equipment acquisition profile

of one interim brigade combat team per fiscal year over the Future

Years Defense Plan. In testimony before the Committee, the Army

Chief of Staff made clear his view that it is preferable to implement the interim force transition at a rate of two brigades per year.

This is in order to reduce the risk to U.S. forces, which in all likelihood will continue to be ordered to undertake operations with

equipment, organization, and doctrine that is not optimized for

many of the missions they will be tasked with performing.

‘‘Objective Force’’—While attempting to address immediate operational needs through the rapid fielding of the interim brigades,

the fiscal year 2001 Army budget also proposes a major research

and development effort to support the design and eventual fielding

of a new medium weight ‘‘objective force’’, based on ‘‘leap ahead’’

technology, and intended for deployment in the 2012 timeframe.

This force will be designed to deploy a combat-capable combined

arms brigade anywhere in the world in 96 hours, the remainder of

the division 24 hours later, and five divisions anywhere in the

world in 30 days. Even though it would be centered around a relatively lightweight (10 to 20 tons), advanced technology Future

Combat System vehicle, the Army believes the objective force can

be shaped and equipped to have the versatility, sustainability, and

lethality to fight and win a full spectrum of conflicts ranging from

small stability and support operations to full-scale major regional

wars.

Heavy Force Recapitalization.—The third major element of the

Army strategy calls for ‘‘recapitalization’’ of its legacy heavy forces,

to ensure that the Army will continue to have the ability to generate overwhelming heavy combat power to fight and win the Nation’s wars. This part of the plan is centered on further tank upgrades, revitalization of helicopter assets, artillery upgrades, and

enhanced situation awareness (digitization) capabilities. It calls for

modernizing III Corps, the 3rd Infantry Division, selected Guard

brigades, and other units not part of the interim force. The Committee notes that even under the most optimistic implementation

timetables for the future ‘‘objective force’’, it will be necessary to

12

maintain the Army’s heavy formations for at least another two decades.

Committee Observations and Concerns:—The Committee commends the present Army leadership for devising a program that

not only attempts to learn lessons from past restructuring efforts,

but also tries to reevaluate and make fundamental changes to core

organizational, doctrinal, and institutional concepts. However, the

Committee believes that if this effort is to avoid the fate of previously well-intended Army efforts, it will require a sustained level

of commitment from the Army, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress, a demonstrated dedication to change and willingness to

make tough choices, and a concerted effort to make this a top Department of Defense priority.

Internal Army Transformation Needed.—While laudatory of the

Army leadership’s aggressive efforts over the past year to make its

transformation vision a reality, the Committee believes that the

Army must undertake a serious self-examination of how it is internally organized and resourced to manage a complex and expensive

undertaking such as Transformation. The Committee has not been

impressed with the slow and protracted way in which the Army

has historically developed and acquired many of its major systems.

For example, it will take 30 years for the Army to develop and procure a new fleet of medium trucks, the Comanche helicopter will

be in development for nearly 20 years before it is procured, and

hundreds of millions were spent to develop the medium Armored

Gun System only to see the Army recommend its cancellation immediately prior to procurement. Other examples abound. The Committee has observed how any number of Army research and development programs have displayed a lack of focus and relevance over

the years, while there have been a series of embarrassing design

problems involving relatively simple items such as trailer hitches

and medium trucks.

Budget Priorities Must Shift As Well.—The Army must also come

to grips with the need to make the hard budgetary choices needed

to reorder its internal priorities and to eliminate lower priority expenditures. It is not unreasonable to require the Army to contribute a significant portion of the total cost of the transformation

effort from savings derived from other desirable but lower priority

Army programs—especially those that after years of development

have yet to demonstrate success, are duplicative of existing capabilities, or represent a ‘‘Cold War’’ mindset in terms of requirements and operational utility.

The Committee is also puzzled by the actions of the Office of the

Secretary of Defense (OSD). The Committee notes that after

issuing what amounts to an ultimatum to the Army to transform

itself, OSD did not follow up its challenge with the resources necessary to properly and robustly implement the transformation plan.

Even though Army transformation is a centerpiece of the President’s fiscal year 2001 defense budget, the Administration proposed

larger program increases for both the Air Force and the Navy than

for the Army. Indeed, the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget cuts the

Army’s overall buying power by 1.5 percent.

The Committee takes no issue with the legitimacy of the Air

Force and Navy program increases, most of which meet valid needs

and requirements. But the Committee also believes that if the DoD

13

and the next Administration does not accord Army transformation

the budgetary priority it deserves, it will languish and eventually

be homogenized into the traditional Army structure along with

many past initiatives, producing only marginal long term effect.

Interim Force Implementation Issues.—The Committee is concerned about many aspects of the proposed ‘‘off-the-shelf’’ acquisition plan the Army has initiated to equip the new interim brigades.

But given Army immediate operational requirements, and the welldemonstrated inability of the Army acquisition system to quickly

develop and field equipment, the Committee believes this unconventional acquisition initiative must be given a chance to succeed.

Even then, the interim brigade acquisition strategy cannot be allowed to become yet another drawn-out, overly expensive program

which collapses from its own weight.

The Committee is aware that some have called for slowing down

the fielding of the interim force to allow for a period of experimentation, detailed platform demonstrations, and operational analysis.

The Committee believes that the Army shall, and must, take the

necessary steps to ensure that the equipment and operational tactics for the interim force meet the warfighting needs of those commanders who may be called upon to use this capability, as well as

providing for the safety of those soldiers who may be called upon

to fight on behalf of the Nation. On balance, given the Army’s

needs the Committee finds itself supportive of the Army Chief of

Staff’s crisply stated vision for the interim force: ‘‘We intend to

stand it up, organize it, equip it, train it, pick it up, and lift it and

use it, as opposed to study it.’’

The Committee cautions the Army that it should be prepared to

demonstrate that it has given full and careful consideration to vehicle cost in awarding upcoming IBCT vehicle production contracts.

In particular, the Committee will review how the Army has

weighed such costs against the benefits and desire of achieving

commonality among all medium combat vehicle types. The Committee expects the Army to follow a ‘‘best value’’ concept when evaluating bids and awarding IBCT contracts.

Committee Recommendations:

The Committee strongly supports the thrust of the Army leadership’s strategic vision to transform its Cold War legacy force to one

that is better tailored to conduct a full spectrum of operations with

dominance, speed, agility, lethality, and sustainability.

In addition, the Committee concurs with the Army leadership

that the greatly increased frequency of small-scale contingency operations over the past decade, and the likely continuation of such

missions in the foreseeable future, justifies the need for establishing its interim brigades more quickly than the ten-year timeframe currently proposed. The Army believes that it can implement

this force in half the time if funds are available, and the Committee agrees that this is what should be done. In addition, the

Committee strongly supports the concept that the interim force

must not just be developed as a specialized force only for small contingency operations, but as a ‘‘full spectrum force’’ capable of effective combat at all levels of conflict.

14

Therefore, after careful consideration, the Committee makes

these recommendations regarding the key aspects of the Army

Transformation strategy:

The Committee recommends fully funding the budget request of $105,000,000 for the cornerstone of the ‘‘objective force’’, the Future

Combat Vehicle, and also provides an additional $46,000,000 over

the request to accelerate this effort.

The Committee bill fully funds the budget request of $646,077,000 to develop and field interim armored vehicles for the

first interim brigade combat team—and provides additions above

the budget request of $150,000,000 for development costs, and

$133,000,000 in procurement accounts to completely test, equip and

field the first IBCT.

In addition, the Committee provides an additional $800,000,000

in procurement funding to equip a second IBCT, in accordance with

the Army’s preferred rate of interim brigade implementation.

As stated above, the Committee believes that the Department of

Defense must increase the overall attention and priority it is giving

to the interim brigade transformation concept. The Committee bill

therefore contains a general provision (Section 8115) prohibiting

the obligation of any funds provided for the second IBCT, unless

and until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense budget submission fully funds

an additional two IBCTs for fiscal year 2002, as well as in each of

the succeeding years of the Future Years Defense Plan until eight

brigades are financed. The Committee expects and directs the DoD

to include adequate funding in next year’s budget request to meet

the recommended pace of converting two brigades per year.

Finally, a key aspect of the Army transformation process must

be an internal transformation, to revitalize and modernize its processes for developing and acquiring major systems in a timely, efficient, and cost effective manner. The Committee therefore directs

the Secretary of the Army to commission an independent organization (as discussed in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army portion of this report) to review and make necessary

recommendations to improve the Army’s management structure,

procedures, requirements development and resource allocation levels for its research and development, major systems acquisition,

and budget/fiscal analysis functions. This review shall expressly

compare the manner in which these functions are organized and

resourced by the other military services, and shall solicit the views

and recommendations for improving these functions from cognizant

officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of Management and Budget, the Congress, and industry. This review shall be

completed no later than March 31, 2001, and a summary of the recommendations and actions the Secretary plans to take in response

to those recommendations shall be transmitted to the congressional

defense committees by April 30, 2001.

FORCES TO BE SUPPORTED

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

The fiscal year 2001 budget is designed to support active Army

forces of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and reserve

forces of 8 divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15 enhanced NaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR644.001 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
15

tional Guard brigades (6 enhanced brigades will be aligned under

2 AC/ARNG integrated division headquarters). These forces provide

the minimum force necessary to meet enduring defense needs and

execute the National Military Strategy.

A summary of the major forces follows:

Fiscal year—

1999 2000 2001

Divisions: 1

Airborne .......................................................................................................... 1 1 1

Air Assault ..................................................................................................... 1 1 1

Light ............................................................................................................... (¥)1/1 1 2 2

Infantry ........................................................................................................... 0 0 0

Mechanized .................................................................................................... 4 4 4

Armored .......................................................................................................... 2 2 2

Total ...................................................................................................... 10 10 10

Non-division Combat units:

Armored Cavalry Regiments .......................................................................... 3 3 3

Separate Brigades ......................................................................................... 0 2 1 1

Total ...................................................................................................... 3 3 4

Active duty military personnel, end strength (Thousands) .................................... 480 480 480

1 Separate brigade is aligned to one of the light divisions.

2 Selected Divisions will have the Interim Brigade Combat Teams (2 brigades undergoing transformation at Ft. Lewis, WA) within them.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

The fiscal year 2001 budget support battle forces totaling 316

ships at the end of fiscal year 2001, the same as in fiscal year 2000.

Forces in fiscal year 2001 include 18 strategic submarines, 12 aircraft carriers, 246 other battle force ships, 1,835 Navy/Marine

Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 619 Undergraduate Training aircraft,

517 Fleet Air Training aircraft, 254 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 404

Reserve aircraft, and 472 aircraft in the pipeline.

A summary of the major forces follow:

Fiscal year—

1999 2000 2001

Strategic Forces ...................................................................................................... 18 18 18

Submarines .................................................................................................... 18 18 18

Other .............................................................................................................. 0 0 0

SLBM Launchers ..................................................................................................... 432 432 432

General Purpose ...................................................................................................... 256 257 258

Aircraft Carriers ............................................................................................. 11 11 12

Surface Combatants ...................................................................................... 106 108 108

Submarines (Attack) ...................................................................................... 57 56 55

Amphibious Warfare Ships ............................................................................ 37 37 38

Combat Logistics Ships ................................................................................. 34 34 34

Other .............................................................................................................. 11 11 11

Support Forces ........................................................................................................ 25 25 25

Mobile Logistics Ships ................................................................................... 2 2 2

Support Ships ................................................................................................ 23 23 23

Mobilization Category A .......................................................................................... 18 16 15

Aircraft Carriers ............................................................................................. 1 1 0

Surface Combatants ...................................................................................... 10 8 8

Amphibious Warfare Ships ............................................................................ 2 2 2

16

Fiscal year—

1999 2000 2001

Mine Warfare .................................................................................................. 5 5 5

Total Ships, Battle Force ...................................................................... 317 316 316

Total Local Defense/Misc Force ............................................................ 162 165 155

Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces ...................................................................................... 138 143 132

Surface Combatant Ships ....................................................................................... 1 0 0

Coastal Defense ...................................................................................................... 13 13 13

Mobilization Category B .......................................................................................... 10 9 10

Surface Combatants ...................................................................................... 0 0 0

Mine Warfare Ships ....................................................................................... 10 9 10

Support Ships ................................................................................................ 0 0 0

Naval Aircraft:

Primary Authorized (Plus Pipe) ...................................................................... 4,100 4,115 4,101

Authorized Pipeline ........................................................................................ 480 477 472

Tactical/ASW Aircraft ..................................................................................... 1,869 1,827 1,835

Fleet Air Training ........................................................................................... 453 517 517

Fleet Air Support ............................................................................................ 260 255 254

Training (Undergraduate) .............................................................................. 621 627 619

Reserve ........................................................................................................... 417 412 404

Naval Personnel:

Active:

Navy ...................................................................................................... 373,046 371,800 372,000

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... 172,641 172,518 172,600

Reserve:

Navy ...................................................................................................... 89,172 89,134 88,900

SELRES .................................................................................................. 73,297 74,124 74,251

TARS ...................................................................................................... 15,875 15,010 14,649

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

The fiscal year 2001 Air Force budget is designed to support a

total active inventory force structure of 78 fighter and attack

squadrons, 4 Air National Guard air defense interceptor squadrons

and 12 bomber squadrons, including B–2s, B–52s, and B–1s. The

Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBM forces will consist of 605 active

launchers.

A summary of the major forces follows:

Fiscal year—

1999 2000 2001

USAF fighter and attack (Active) ..................................................................... 83 81 78

USAF fighter and attack (ANG and AFRC) ....................................................... 45 45 45

Air defense interceptor (ANG) ........................................................................... 6 6 4

Strategic bomber (Active) ................................................................................. 10 11 12

Strategic bomber (ANG and AFRC) ................................................................... 3 3 3

ICBM operational launch facilities/control centers .......................................... 605 605 605

ICBM operational missile boosters ................................................................... 550 550 550

USAF Airlift Squadrons (Active):

Strategic airlift ........................................................................................ 15 15 12

Tactical airlift .......................................................................................... 11 11 11

Total Airlift ...................................................................................... 26 26 23

Total Active Inventory ..................................................................... 6,203 6,143 6,114

FY 1999 (Actual)FY 2000 Col/FY

2001 PB FY 2001 PB

Active Duty ........................................................................................................ 360,590 357,900 357,000

Reserve Component .......................................................................................... 177,478 180,386 182,300

17

FY 1999 (Actual)FY 2000 Col/FY

2001 PB FY 2001 PB

Air National Guard ............................................................................................ 105,715 106,678 108,000

Air Force Reserve .............................................................................................. 71,772 73,708 74,300

(19)

TITLE I

MILITARY PERSONNEL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY MILITARY PERSONNEL

APPROPRIATIONS

The President’s fiscal year 2001 budget request continues to

make military personnel programs a high priority. The budget request proposed a 3.7 percent pay raise, effective January 1, 2001,

included a significant increase in funds for advertising and recruiting support, expanded pays, bonuses and other retention incentives, recommended an increase in the number of recruiters, and

contained new initiatives to improve the Services’ ability to recruit

and retain a quality force.

The Committee agrees with these personnel initiatives and recommends increases over the budget for programs such as Basic Allowance for Housing costs, Dislocation Allowance, enlistment and

selective reenlistment bonuses, recruiting and advertising, and additional recruiters.

SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

Fiscal year 2000 .................................................................................. $73,894,693,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 75,801,666,000

Fiscal year 2001 recommendation ..................................................... 75,904,216,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +102,550,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,904,216,000

for the Military Personnel accounts. The recommendation is an increase of $2,009,523,000 above the $73,894,693,000 appropriated in

fiscal year 2000. These military personnel budget total comparisons

include appropriations for the active, reserve, and National Guard

accounts. The following tables include a summary of the recommendations by appropriation account. Explanations of changes

from the budget request appear later in this section.

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 MILITARY PERSONNEL

RECOMMENDATION

[In thousands of dollars]

Account Budget Recommendation Change from

request

Military Personnel:

Army ....................................................................................... $22,198,457 $22,242,457 +$44,000

Navy ....................................................................................... 17,742,897 17,799,297 +56,400

Marine Corps .......................................................................... 6,822,300 6,818,300 ¥4,000

Air Force ................................................................................. 18,282,834 18,238,234 ¥44,600

Subtotal, Active ................................................................. 65,046,488 65,098,288 +51,800

20

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 MILITARY PERSONNEL

RECOMMENDATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Account Budget Recommendation Change from

request

Reserve Personnel:

Army ....................................................................................... 2,433,880 2,463,320 +29,440

Navy ....................................................................................... 1,528,385 1,566,095 +37,710

Marine Corps .......................................................................... 436,386 440,886 +4,500

Air Force ................................................................................. 981,710 980,610 ¥1,100

National Guard Personnel:

Army ....................................................................................... 3,747,636 3,719,336 ¥28,300

Air Force ................................................................................. 1,627,181 1,635,681 +8,500

Subtotal, Guard and Reserve ............................................ 10,755,178 10,805,928 +50,750

Total, Title I ....................................................................... 75,801,666 75,904,216 +102,550

The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes a slight decrease of

618 end strength for the active forces and an increase of 1,556 end

strength for the selected reserve over fiscal year 2000 authorized

levels.

The Committee recommends the following personnel levels highlighted in the tables below.

OVERALL ACTIVE END STRENGTH

Fiscal year 2000 estimate .................................................................. 1,382,218

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 1,381,600

Fiscal year 2001 recommendation ..................................................... 1,382,242

Compared with Fiscal year 2000 ............................................... +24

Compared with Fiscal year 2001 budget request ..................... +642

OVERALL SELECTED RESERVE END STRENGTH

Fiscal year 2000 estimate .................................................................. 864,144

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 865,700

Fiscal year 2001 recommendation ..................................................... 866,934

Compared with Fiscal year 2000 ............................................... +2,790

Compared with Fiscal year 2001 budget request ..................... +1,234

FY 2000

estimate

Fiscal year 2001

Budget

request

RecommendationChange from

request

Active Forces (end strength):

Army ...................................................................................... 480,000 480,000 480,000 ....................

Navy ...................................................................................... 371,800 372,000 372,642 +642

Marine Corps ......................................................................... 172,518 172,600 172,600 ....................

Air Force ................................................................................ 357,900 357,000 357,000 ....................

Total, Active Force ............................................................ 1,382,218 1,381,600 1,382,242 +642

Guard and Reserve (end strength):

Army Reserve ........................................................................ 205,000 205,000 205,300 +300

Navy Reserve ......................................................................... 89,134 88,900 88,900 ....................

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................... 39,624 39,500 39,558 +58

Air Force Reserve .................................................................. 73,708 74,300 74,470 +170

Army National Guard ............................................................ 350,000 350,000 350,706 +706

Air National Guard ................................................................ 106,678 108,000 108,000 ....................

Total, Guard and Reserve ................................................ 864,144 865,700 866,934 +1,234

21

ADJUSTMENTS TO MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNT

OVERVIEW

END STRENGTH ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommends a personnel understrength reduction of $138,400,000 to the budget request, as a result of a General

Accounting Office review of the fiscal year 2000 military personnel

end strength levels. The General Accounting Office has been examining the costs for military pay and allowances to determine if the

fiscal year 2001 requirements are correct. It has concluded, based

on March 2000 end strength projections, that the active and Reserve components will begin fiscal year 2001 with approximately

3,200 fewer military personnel on-board than budgeted. In addition, actual data shows active military personnel on-board, by

grade mix, is different than was requested in last year’s budget request. This means the fiscal year 2001 pay and allowances requirements for personnel are incorrect and the budgets are overstated.

The Committee will continue to monitor the Services’ end strength

levels as more current data becomes available.

UNOBLIGATED/UNEXPENDED MILITARY PERSONNEL BALANCES

The Committee recommends a reduction of $96,000,000 to the

budget request, as a result of a General Accounting Office review

of prior year unobligated military personnel account balances. Generally the Services’ military personnel appropriations are obligated

in the year of appropriation, with the majority of the obligated balances being disbursed within two years after being appropriated.

However, all of the funds obligated are not always expended, and

those unexpended balances are then transferred to the foreign currency account. Since the Services’ account data have shown a pattern of not spending all of their appropriated funds, the Committee

believes that the fiscal year 2001 military personnel budget request

is overstated and can be reduced.

The Committee also believes the Services need to do a more comprehensive job of reviewing their appropriations balances to ensure

that funds are properly obligated and expended, and if not, to adjust their budget submissions accordingly.

UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS

The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request

of $250,550,000 for additional active duty and reserve component

pays and allowances to enhance enlisted recruiting, retention, and

quality of life initiatives for military personnel, as follows:

[Dollars in thousands]

Enlistment Bonuses ........................................................................... $130,400

Selective Reenlistment Bonuses ........................................................ 33,000

AGR Pilot Bonus ................................................................................. 12,400

College First Program ........................................................................ 5,000

Basic Allowance for Housing ............................................................. 63,750

Dislocation Allowance ........................................................................ 6,000

Total .......................................................................................... $250,550

22

BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING

The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of $63,750,000 for the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) program.

The budget recommended funds for a BAH initiative that will

eliminate the out-of-pocket housing costs being paid by military

personnel. This initiative will lower the average out-of-pocket costs

for off-base housing from the current 18.8 percent to 15 percent

next year, and eliminate them entirely by fiscal year 2005. The

Committee recommends an additional $30,000,000, to further reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for military personnel over the

budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends $33,750,000 to maintain

housing allowances at the 1999 levels during fiscal year 2001, in

order to protect service members from any further erosion of their

housing benefits in areas where the 2000 BAH rates had been decreased.

GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES

The Committee recognizes that Guard and Reserve forces are an

essential part of the total force having played an important role in

recent peacetime operations. Many of the skills needed for response

to a crisis reside in the Reserve components, guaranteeing the increased use of Reservists in military operations other than war.

The Committee continues its support of the Guard and Reserve and

recommends an increase of $320,150,000 over the budget request

for the personnel and operation and maintenance accounts as

shown below.

[Dollars in thousands]

Military Personnel .............................................................................. +$50,750

Operation and Maintenance .............................................................. +269,400

Total .......................................................................................... +$320,150

FULL-TIME SUPPORT STRENGTHS

There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard and

Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and Reserve

(AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component personnel.

Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, maintain

and administer the Reserve components. Civilian (military) technicians directly support units, and are very important to help units

maintain readiness and meet the wartime mission of the Army and

Air Force.

Full-time support end strength in all categories totaled 148,849

in fiscal year 2000. The fiscal year 2001 budget request is 133,023

end strength. The following table summarizes Guard and Reserve

full-time support end strengths:

GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS

FY 2000

estimate

Budget

request

Recommenda- tionChange from

request

Army Reserve:

AGR ....................................................................................... 12,804 12,806 13,106 +300

Technicians ........................................................................... 6,474 6,444 7,094 +650

23

GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS—Continued

FY 2000

estimate

Budget

request

Recommenda- tionChange from

request

Navy Reserve TAR .......................................................................... 15,010 14,649 14,649 ....................

Marine Corps Reserve .................................................................... 2,272 2,203 2,261 +58

Air Force Reserve:

AGR ....................................................................................... 1,134 1,278 1,336 +58

Technicians ........................................................................... 9,785 9,733 9,733 ....................

Army National Guard:

AGR ....................................................................................... 22,430 22,448 23,154 +706

Technicians ........................................................................... 23,957 23,957 24,992 +1,035

Air National Guard:

AGR ....................................................................................... 11,157 11,148 11,148 ....................

Technicians ........................................................................... 22,596 22,547 22,547 ....................

Total:

AGR/TAR ................................................................................ 64,807 64,532 65,654 +1,122

Technicians ........................................................................... 62,812 62,681 64,366 +1,685

MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $22,006,361,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 22,198,457,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 22,242,457,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +44,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,242,457,000

for Military Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase

of $236,096,000 above the $22,006,361,000 appropriated for fiscal

year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

24

25

The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,

Army are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:

1100 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses ................................................ 71,000

Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:

2450 Unemployment Benefits ............................................................... ¥2,100

Other Adjustments:

2770 Personnel Underexecution ........................................................... ¥24,900

2805 Basic Allowance for Housing ....................................................... 12,800

2815 BAH Out-of-Pocket Costs ............................................................. 10,200

2820 Dislocation Allowance ................................................................... 2,000

2825 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances ................................... ¥25,000

MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $17,258,823,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 17,742,897,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 17,799,297,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +56,400,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,799,297,000

for Military Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase

of $540,474,000 above the $17,258,823,000 appropriated for fiscal

year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

26

27

The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,

Navy are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:

3900 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses ................................................ 23,500

Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:

5250 Unemployment Benefits ............................................................... ¥1,400

Other Adjustments:

5610 Basic Allowance for Housing ....................................................... 4,300

5625 USS Houston manning ................................................................. 3,500

5630 Additional Recruiter Manning ..................................................... 15,000

5631 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs .............................................. 9,500

5632 Dislocation Allowance ................................................................... 2,000

ACTIVE NAVY MANNING

The Committee recommends an increase of $18,500,000 over the

‘‘Military Personnel, Navy’’ budget request to provide additional

manpower costs for the required end strength associated with the

decision not to implement the fiscal year 2001 decommissioning of

the USS Houston submarine, and to increase the Navy’s recruiter

manning levels from 4,500 to 5,000 total strength level.

MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $6,555,403,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 6,822,300,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 6,818,300,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥4,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,818,300,000

for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an

increase of $262,897,000 above the $6,555,403,000 appropriated for

fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

28

29

The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,

Marine Corps are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:

6700 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses ................................................ 4,000

6700 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses ............................ 4,000

Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:

7900 Unemployment Benefits ............................................................... ¥700

Other Adjustments:

8230 Personnel Underexecution ........................................................... ¥8,100

8255 Basic Allowance for Housing ....................................................... 1,500

8260 Marine Corps Execution Repricing .............................................. ¥8,000

8265 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs .............................................. 2,800

8270 Dislocation Allowance ................................................................... 500

MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $17,861,803,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 18,282,834,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 18,238,234,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥44,600,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,238,234,000

for Military Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $376,431,000 above the $17,861,803,000 appropriated for

fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

30

31

The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,

Air Force are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:

9350 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses .............................................. 7,500

9350 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses .......................... 29,000

Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:

10700 Unemployment Benefits ............................................................. ¥600

Other Adjustments:

11020 Personnel Underexecution ......................................................... ¥59,600

11080 Basic Allowance for Housing ..................................................... 12,100

11115 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances ................................. ¥42,000

11120 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs ............................................ 7,500

11125 Dislocation Allowance ................................................................. 1,500

RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $2,289,996,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 2,433,880,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,463,320,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +29,440,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,463,320,000

for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase

of $173,324,000 above the $2,289,996,000 appropriated for fiscal

year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

32

33

The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,

Army are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:

11750 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses ................... 12,400

Other Adjustments:

12020 Full Time Support/AGRs ............................................................ 10,000

12045 JROTC Program .......................................................................... 1,300

12055 College First Program ................................................................ 5,000

12060 Basic Allowance for Housing ..................................................... 740

RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,473,388,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 1,528,385,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,566,095,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +37,710,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,566,095,000

for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of

$92,707,000 above the $1,473,388,000 appropriated for fiscal year

2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

34

35

The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,

Navy are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

12880 JROTC Program .......................................................................... 600

12895 Basic Allowance for Housing ..................................................... 310

12900 CINC Active Duty for Training ................................................. 13,400

12910 Annual Training .......................................................................... 23,400

RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $412,650,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 436,386,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 440,886,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +4,500,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $440,886,000 for

Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $28,236,000 above the $412,650,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

36

37

The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,

Marine Corps are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

13780 JROTC Program .......................................................................... 300

13795 Personnel Underexecution ......................................................... ¥700

13800 Active Duty for Special Work .................................................... 3,000

13805 Active Personnel Reserve Reassessment .................................. 1,900

RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $892,594,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 981,710,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 980,610,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥1,100,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $980,610,000 for

Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase

of $88,016,000 above the $892,594,000 appropriated for fiscal year

2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

38

39

The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,

Air Force are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

14610 Personnel Underexecution ......................................................... ¥8,100

14626 JROTC Program .......................................................................... 1,200

14640 AGR Pilot Bonus ......................................................................... 3,700

14645 RED HORSE Unit ...................................................................... 400

14650 Additional Recruiter Manning ................................................... 1,700

AIR FORCE RESERVE MANNING

The Committee recommends an increase over the request of

$2,100,000 in ‘‘Reserve Personnel, Air Force’’ to provide additional

personnel costs required for the stand up of a new total force Rapid

Engineer-Deployable Heavy Operations-Repair Squadron Engineer

(RED HORSE) unit, and additional Reserve recruiter manning end

strength.

NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $3,610,479,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 3,747,636,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 3,719,336,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥28,300,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,719,336,000

for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $108,857,000 above the $3,610,479,000 appropriated for

fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

40

41

The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Army are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:

15200 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses ................... 12,000

Other Adjustments:

15360 Personnel Underexecution ......................................................... ¥36,100

15390 Additional Full Time Support AGR ........................................... 23,500

15420 Basic Allowance for Housing ..................................................... 1,300

15430 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances ................................. ¥29,000

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION—CIVIL SUPPORT TEAMS

The Department of Defense has currently fielded 10 Weapons of

Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams. Last year, the Congress directed the establishment and organization of an additional 17

teams, for a total of 27 teams. The stationing of these additional

teams has already been determined by the Department. However,

the Committee believes that should additional WMD teams be established by the Congress or the Department in the future, priority

should be given to states in the Southwestern United States, and

other areas which are experiencing significant population increases.

GUARD AND RESERVE WORKYEAR REQUIREMENTS

For the past several years, the Committee has asked the General

Accounting Office (GAO) to review the Reserve military personnel

budget requests. In the course of their review, the GAO found that

the Army National Guard has overstated the average number of

military personnel workyears budgeted because the inactive duty

training participation rates used to estimate the budget were overstated. Last year, the Committee also directed the Secretary of Defense to ensure the Army National Guard’s accounting procedures

for determining annual training and schools and special training

costs were properly coded, and that the Army National Guard follow the Department’s financial management regulations. GAO has

determined that the Army National Guard has not corrected the

accounting problems reported last year, and further found that this

accounting practice is also followed by the other Guard and Reserve components. The Committee again directs the Secretary of

Defense to report to the Committee, by February 1, 2001, on its efforts to ensure that accurate accounting information is used in preparing the Reserve components budget submissions.

NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,533,196,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 1,627,181,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,635,681,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +8,500,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,635,681,000

for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is

an increase of $102,485,000 above the $1,533,196,000 appropriated

for fiscal year 2000.

42

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

43

44

The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Air Force are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

16120 Personnel Underexecution ......................................................... ¥900

16155 Basic Allowance for Housing ..................................................... 700

16160 AGR Pilot Bonus ......................................................................... 8,700

(45)

TITLE II

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The fiscal year 2001 budget request for Operation and Maintenance is $96,280,113,000 in new budget authority, which is an increase of $4,045,344,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal

year 2000. The request also includes a $150,000,000 cash transfer

from the National Defense Stockpile Fund Transaction fund.

The accompanying bill recommends $97,507,228,000 for fiscal

year 2001, which is an increase of $1,227,115,000 above the budget

request. In addition, the Committee recommends that $150,000,000

be transferred from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction

fund, as proposed in the budget request.

These appropriations finance the costs of operating and maintaining the Armed Forces, including the reserve components and

related support activities of the Department of Defense (DoD), except military personnel costs. Included are pay for civilians, services for maintenance of equipment and facilities, fuel, supplies, and

spare parts for weapons and equipment. Financial requirements

are influenced by many factors, including force levels such as the

number of aircraft squadrons, Army and Marine Corps divisions,

installations, military personnel strength and deployments, rates of

operation activity, and the quantity and complexity of equipment

such as aircraft, ships missiles and tanks in operation.

The table below summarizes the Committee’s recommendations.

46

47

48

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW

Despite increased funding proposed by the administration in the

fiscal year 2001 budget request, the Committee notes that there

are substantial unfunded requirements in the Operation and Maintenance accounts that are critical to maintaining the readiness of

U.S. armed forces, enhancing the sustainability of such forces when

they are deployed, and improving the condition of the supporting

infrastructure. As in past years, the Committee requested that the

Military Services identify their top unfunded priorities for consideration during the Committee’s deliberations on the fiscal year 2001

Department of Defense Appropriations bill. Once again, the Military Services have identified significant shortfalls in the Operation

and Maintenance accounts. In the Committee’s view, these shortfalls pose a serious risk to the near term readiness of U.S. forces

as well as the ability of these forces to sustain combat operations

once deployed. These shortfalls are evident in a number of areas

financed by the Operation and Maintenance accounts including:

maintenance of infrastructure; funding for depot-level maintenance

of weapons systems; field level equipment maintenance and

logistical support; recruiting, advertising and related programs;

and basic personnel support equipment such as cold weather gear,

body armor, naval shipboard accommodations, and minor equipment items to support soldiers in the field. To correct these deficiencies, the Committee recommends increased funding above the

budget request in a number of areas including those cited above.

The Committee also notes that there are areas in the Operation

and Maintenance accounts where savings can be achieved to free

up resources both for the readiness needs discussed above, and to

make resources available for more robust modernization programs.

Given the need to correct deficiencies in the Operation and Maintenance accounts in order to enhance near term readiness and sustainability as well as weapons modernization, the Committee believes it is imperative for the Department of Defense to use its Operation and Maintenance funding as efficiently as possible. Therefore, the Committee recommends certain reductions based on factof-life considerations, as well as management actions that the Department should under take to streamline activities funded in the

Operation and Maintenance accounts.

REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE

The Committee recommends an increase of $830,300,000 above

the budget request to slow the growth in the backlog of real property maintenance. The Committee notes that despite modest increases proposed by the administration for real property maintenance, the level of funding in the fiscal year 2001 budget request

falls far short of arresting the growth in the backlog of such work.

The budget justification materials indicate an increase in the backlog of real property maintenance workload of almost $1,600,000,000

from 2000 to 2001, and a total backlog in 2001 of $27,200,000,000.

Of this amount, the backlog for the Army is over $16,000,000,000.

To address this backlog, the Committee recommends additional

funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.

49

Army ....................................................................................................... $555,800,000

Navy ........................................................................................................ 70,000,000

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... 47,000,000

Air Force ................................................................................................. 70,000,000

Defense-Wide .......................................................................................... 10,500,000

Army Reserve ......................................................................................... 30,000,000

Navy Reserve ......................................................................................... 15,000,000

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................................... 2,000,000

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................. 10,000,000

Army National Guard ............................................................................ 15,000,000

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 5,000,000

DEPOT MAINTENANCE

The Committee recommends an increase of $343,202,000 above

the budget request for depot-level maintenance of weapons systems. The Committee notes with concern that the budget proposes

reducing funding available for depot maintenance by over

$700,000,000 from fiscal year 2000 levels while allowing the backlog of such maintenance to increase to nearly $1,200,000,000. To

stem the growth in the backlog of depot maintenance, the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request to

be distributed as follows.

Army ....................................................................................................... $54,402,000

Navy ........................................................................................................ 181,200,000

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... 22,000,000

Air Force ................................................................................................. 29,100,000

Defense-Wide .......................................................................................... 10,000,000

Navy Reserve ......................................................................................... 10,000,000

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................................... 5,000,000

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................. 15,000,000

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 16,500,000

SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

The Committee recommends an increase of $66,150,000 above

the budget request for soldier support equipment. The Committee

notes that there remains a substantial backlog of basic troop support equipment such as minor equipment needed to support soldiers in the field, cold weather clothing, body armor, and materials

to support shipboard accommodations for sailors. To address these

deficiencies, the Committee recommends additional funding over

the budget request to be distributed as follows.

Army ....................................................................................................... $5,000,000

Navy ........................................................................................................ 15,850,000

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... 21,300,000

Army Reserve ......................................................................................... 9,000,000

Army National Guard ............................................................................ 12,000,000

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 3,000,000

JUNIOR ROTC

The Committee recommends an increase of $12,100,000 above

the budget request for the Junior ROTC program. Of this amount,

$3,400,000 is for the Reserve Personnel accounts, and $8,700,000

is for the Operation and Maintenance accounts. The Committee

notes that the Department of Defense is nearly 800 units below authorized levels for the JROTC program, and does not plan to reach

the authorized levels until fiscal year 2006. In order to accelerate

this schedule, the Committee recommends additional funding over

the budget request to be distributed as follows.

50

Reserve Personnel, Army ...................................................................... $1,300,000

Reserve Personnel, Navy ....................................................................... 600,000

Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps ........................................................ 300,000

Reserve Personnel, Air Force ................................................................ 1,200,000

Operation and Maintenance, Army ...................................................... 4,500,000

Operation and Maintenance, Navy ...................................................... 1,700,000

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps ........................................ 700,000

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force ............................................... 1,800,000

FIELD MAINTENANCE AND LOGISTICAL SUPPORT

The Committee recommends an increase of $60,800,000 above

the budget request to address deficiencies associated with field

level equipment maintenance, field logistics, and other logistical

support programs. The Committee notes that a number of these

programs have routinely been highlighted on the Services’ unfunded lists and include programs such as corrosion control, system

sustainment and technical support, and reliability and maintainability programs. To fully fund these programs, the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.

Army ....................................................................................................... $20,000,000

Navy ........................................................................................................ 20,500,000

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... 15,000,000

Air Force ................................................................................................. 5,300,000

WAR RESERVE AND PREPOSITIONED MATERIALS

The Committee recommends an increase of $60,000,000 above

the budget request to address deficiencies associated with war reserve and pre-positioned materials stocks. The Committee notes

that the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress has routinely

highlighted vast shortfalls in the stocks of such material which are

critical to sustaining combat operations. To address these shortfalls

within the Marine Corps’ Maritime Prepositioning program and the

Air Force readiness spares kits, the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.

In addition, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than

January 31, 2001, in both classified and unclassified form, which

details specific shortfalls in war reserve materials, prepositioned

materials, and other stocks needed to sustain combat operations as

described in the Quarterly Readiness Report to the Congress. This

report shall include estimates for both the quantities and types of

material shortfalls, measures that DoD will take to eliminate these

shortfalls, and estimates of the cost to remedy these shortfalls.

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... $15,000,000

Air Force ................................................................................................. 45,000,000

HEADQUARTERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

The Committee recommends a reduction of $143,630,000 below

the budget request for headquarters and administrative activities.

The Committee supports the efforts of the Defense Authorization

Committees to reduce administrative expenses to the same degree

that other elements of the Armed Forces force structure have been

reduced. In addition, the Committee notes that the fiscal year 2001

budget justification materials reflect substantial growth in headVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR644.002 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
51

quarters activities for each of the Services including staffing, supplies and materials, and vehicle leases which do not appear justified in light of unmet readiness and modernization needs discussed

elsewhere in this report. Accordingly, the Committee recommends

the following reductions from the budget request.

Army ....................................................................................................... $38,700,000

Navy ........................................................................................................ 12,376,000

Air Force ................................................................................................. 75,000,000

Defense-Wide .......................................................................................... 17,554,000

ACQUISITION PROGRAM GROWTH

The Committee recommends a reduction of $54,481,000 below

the budget request as a result of acquisition program growth.

While the Committee has expressed its support for programs needed to provide logistical support to the operating forces, the Committee is concerned about the level of acquisition staffing growth

proposed in the budget request. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions from the budget request.

Navy ........................................................................................................ $45,681,000

Air Force ................................................................................................. 8,800,000

DFAS PROGRAM GROWTH

The Committee recommends a reduction of $47,111,000 below

the budget request as a result of program growth for the Defense

Finance and Accounting Service as reflected in the Operation and

Maintenance accounts. The Committee notes that this growth is, in

part, the result of a proposal to establish a European site for DFAS

in the fiscal 2001 budget. However, the budget materials are unclear as to the ultimate costs and benefits of this action. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions from

the budget request.

Army ....................................................................................................... $19,590,000

Air Force ................................................................................................. 27,521,000

NATO AND OVERSEAS STAFF GROWTH

The Committee recommends a reduction of $26,000,000 below

the budget request as a result of program growth for NATO and

other European headquarters elements. In light of readiness and

modernization shortfalls discussed elsewhere in this report, the

Committee believes that such growth is unwarranted, and recommends maintaining resource levels for overseas headquarters

elements at fiscal year 2000 levels. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions from the budget request.

Army ....................................................................................................... $18,700,000

Navy ........................................................................................................ 6,200,000

Air Force ................................................................................................. 1,100,000

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET EXECUTION DATA

The Committee directs the Department of Defense to continue to

provide the congressional defense committees with quarterly budget execution data. Such data should be provided not later than

forty-five days past the close of each quarter of the fiscal year, and

should be provided for each O–1 budget activity, activity group,

and subactivity group for each of the active, defense-wide, reserve

52

and National Guard components. For each O–1 budget activity, activity group, and subactivity group, these reports should include:

the budget request and actual obligations; the DoD distribution of

unallocated congressional adjustments to the budget request; all

adjustments made by DoD during the process of rebaselining the

O&M accounts; all adjustments resulting from below threshold

reprogrammings; and all adjustments resulting from prior approval

reprogramming requests.

In addition, the Committee requires that the Department of Defense provide semiannual written notifications to the congressional

defense committees which summarize Operation and Maintenance

budget execution to include the effect of rebaselining procedures,

other below threshold reprogrammings, and prior approval

reprogrammings. The Committee further directs that the Department of Defense provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations written notification 30 days prior to executing procedures to rebaseline the Operation and Maintenance accounts.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPROGRAMMINGS

The Committee directs that proposed transfers of funds between

O–1 budget activities in excess of $15,000,000 be subject to normal,

prior approval reprogramming procedures. Items for which funds

have been specifically provided in any appropriation in this report

using phrases ‘‘only for’’ and ‘‘only to’’ are Congressional interest

items for the purpose of the base for Reprogramming (DD form

1414). Each of these items must be carried on the DD 1414 at the

stated amount, or revised amount if changed during conference or

if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. In addition, due to continuing concerns about force readiness and the diversion of Operation and Maintenance funds, the Committee directs the Department of Defense to provide written notification to

the congressional defense committees for the cumulative value of

any and all transfers in excess of $15,000,000 from the following

budget activities and subactivity group categories:

Operation and maintenance, Army

Land Forces: Divisions, Corps combat forces, Corps support

forces, Echelon above corps forces, Land forces operations support;

Land Forces Readiness: Land forces depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Navy

Air Operations: Mission and other flight operations, Fleet air

training, Aircraft depot maintenance; Ship Operations: Mission and

other ship operations, Ship operational support and training, Intermediate maintenance, Ship depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps

Expeditionary Forces: Operational forces, Depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Air Force

Air Operations: Primary combat forces, Primary combat weapons,

Air operations training, Depot maintenance; Mobility Operations:

Airlift operations, Depot maintenance, Payments to the transporVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR644.002 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
53

tation business area; Basic Skills and Advanced Training: Depot

maintenance; Logistics Operations: Depot maintenance.

Further, the Department should follow prior approval reprogramming procedures for transfers in excess of $15,000,000 out of the

following budget subactivities.

Operation and maintenance, Army

Depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Navy

Aircraft depot maintenance,

Ship depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps

Depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Air Force

Air Operations, Depot maintenance,

Mobility Operations, Depot maintenance,

Basic Skills and Advanced Training, Depot maintenance, and

Logistics Operations, Depot maintenance.

PUBLIC TRANSIT VOUCHERS

The Committee is aware that executive order 13150, April 21,

2000, establishes a public transportation fringe benefit for employees in the National Capital Region (NCR). The Committee is interested in the measures that the Secretary of Defense will take to

implement this benefit. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, no later than December 31,

2000, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations

which delineates the measures that the Department of Defense will

take to implement Executive Order 13150, and an estimate of the

funding required to support this Executive Order.

RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING

The Committee recommends an increase of $75,000,000 over the

budget request for active and reserve recruiting and advertising

programs. The Committee recognizes that the military services’ recruiting efforts to enlist high quality recruits is continuing to be

difficult and provides additional funds to help meet their recruiting

goals. The Committee further recommends that $2,000,000 of the

funds provided are only for the Joint Recruiting and Advertising

Program for a pilot program aimed at developing a partnership

program involving DoD and athletic associations at two sites to deliver recruitment messages to high school students.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $19,256,152,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 19,073,731,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 19,386,843,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +313,112,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,386,843,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Army. The recommendation is an

54

increase of $130,691,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal

year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

55

56

57

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

250 M-Gator ........................................................................................... 3,000

550 JCS Exercises .................................................................................. ¥11,000

550 Integrated Training Area Management ........................................ 12,900

550 Modern Burner Unit ....................................................................... 5,000

650 Depot Maintenance ......................................................................... 50,000

650 Depot Maintenance Apprenticeship Program ............................... 4,402

750 NTC Airhead ................................................................................... 2,000

750 Security Improvements-NTC Heliport .......................................... 1,900

Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:

1300 Industrial Preparedness Growth ................................................. ¥20,100

Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:

1850 Institutional Training-Specialized Skill Training ...................... 10,000

1850 Military Police School/MCTFT Joint Training ........................... 2,000

1850 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education .................. 3,000

1950 DLI Classroom and Office Furnishings ...................................... 2,500

1950 Defense Language Institute ......................................................... 2,000

1950 Monterey Regional Education Initiative ..................................... 2,000

1950 Office Furnishings for DOIM Computer Center ......................... 1,500

1950 Joint Multi-Dimensional Education & Analysis System (NDU) 3,000

1950 Support to International Students .............................................. 1,000

2000 Institutional Training-Training Support .................................... 10,000

2000 Distance Learning-CCCE ............................................................. 1,500

2000 Armor Officers Distance Learning .............................................. 1,500

2200 Recruiting and Advertising .......................................................... 15,000

2400 JROTC ........................................................................................... 4,500

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

2800 Pulse Technology .......................................................................... 5,000

2850 System Technical Support ............................................................ 20,000

2850 Supercomputing Work .................................................................. 6,000

2850 Logistics and Technology Project ................................................. 1,000

3250 Claims Underexecution ................................................................ ¥40,000

3600 NATO Administrative Growth ..................................................... ¥12,400

3650 Administrative Cost Growth in Europe ...................................... ¥6,300

Undistributed:

3710 Classified Programs Undistributed ............................................. 7,000

3740 Memorial Events ........................................................................... 700

3750 Real Property Maintenance ......................................................... 273,300

3780 Headquarters and Administration Growth ................................. ¥38,700

3825 DFAS Program Growth ................................................................ ¥19,590

3830 Chicago Military Academy ........................................................... 5,000

3835 Repairs at Fort Baker .................................................................. 6,000

3840 Clara Barton Center at Pine Bluff .............................................. 1,500

3845 Defense Joint Accounting System ............................................... ¥14,000

3846 WMD-Distance Learning Network .............................................. 4,000

3847 WMD-Counter-Terrorism Training and Testing ........................ 7,000

MEDIUM GENERAL PURPOSE TENTS

Of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, Army the Committee directs that $14,000,000 be made available

only for the purpose of meeting prospective requirements for modular general purpose tents (M.G.P.T.) associated with wartime and

other mobilizations as described in the report accompanying the

House Department of Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year

2000.

TACTICAL MISSILE MAINTENANCE

Of the amount recommended for Operation and Maintenance,

Army, specifically depot maintenance, the Army will be funded

with $48,300,000 to be applied to Army Tactical Missile Depot

58

Maintenance requirements, to include ground support equipment,

at its organic public depots.

MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL BAYONNE (MOTBY)

Of the funds provided in Operation and Maintenance, Army for

real property maintenance, $5,000,000 shall only be made available

to the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, only for the stabilization of the South Berths at MOTBY.

NIGHT TRAINING SAFETY ‘‘LIGHT STICKS’’

The Committee believes that the number of night training accidents may be reduced if soldiers were provided with small, inexpensive, low light emitting, emergency signaling devices. Although

chemiluminescent devices are available though the defense supply

system, they are a discretionary item and not provided to the Army

on a scheduled basis. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Army

to study the feasibility of providing low-light, chemiluminescent,

emergency lighting devices to individual soldiers involved in tactical training.

DISTANCE LEARNING—CCCE

The Committee recommends $1,500,000 to enhance and expand

the City Colleges of Chicago Europe (CCCE) college degree and certificate program for U.S. military service members.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $22,958,784,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 23,250,154,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 23,426,830,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +176,676,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,426,830,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The recommendation is an

increase of $468,046,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal

year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

59

60

61

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Navy are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

4600 Aviation Depot Maintenance ....................................................... 20,000

4650 Object Oriented Simulations/Reengineering Pilot Program ...... 5,000

5000 Ship Depot Maintenance .............................................................. 142,000

5050 Berthing & Messing Barge ........................................................... 20,000

5400 JCS Exercises ................................................................................ ¥1,000

5500 Man Overboard Indicator ............................................................. 2,850

5500 CINCUSNAVEUR Administrative Growth ................................ ¥1,500

5550 Reverse Osmosis Desalinators ..................................................... 1,000

5550 Surface Ship Calibration Support ............................................... 4,000

5850 Arms Control ................................................................................. ¥200

5950 CWIS Overhauls ........................................................................... 4,000

5950 Mk 45 Mod 1 Maintenance .......................................................... 10,000

6220 Partnership for Rapid Innovation Pilot Project at Navy Region

Northwest .............................................................................................. 10,000

6220 Portal Crane Maintenance, Rota ................................................. 3,500

6220 NATO Administrative Cost Growth ............................................ ¥4,700

Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:

6500 Ship Disposal Initiative ................................................................ 10,000

6500 Nuclear Submarine Inactivations (PSNS) .................................. 46,700

Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:

7200 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education .................. 3,000

7300 NPS-Center for Civil Military Relations ..................................... 1,245

7300 Joint Multi-Dimensional Education & Analysis System (Naval

War College) .......................................................................................... 2,000

7300 Support to International Students .............................................. 500

7300 Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, Monterey ........................ 4,000

7350 CNET ............................................................................................. 5,000

7350 Distance Learning—CNET .......................................................... 4,000

7700 JROTC ........................................................................................... 1,700

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

8550 Acquisition Management .............................................................. ¥8,318

8600 Acquisition Management .............................................................. ¥19,349

8600 Information Technology Center ................................................... 7,000

8650 Acquisition Workforce ................................................................... ¥13,614

8650 Configuration Management Information System (to insert

weapon systems data into the CMIS database) ................................. 15,000

8700 Acquisition Management .............................................................. ¥4,400

8700 Trident Sonar Manual Conversion .............................................. 3,000

Undistributed:

9280 Classified Programs Undistributed ............................................. ¥15,144

9320 Navy Environmental Leadership Program ................................. 5,000

9360 Headquarters and Administration Growth ................................. ¥12,376

9380 Contract and Advisory Services ................................................... ¥14,061

9405 Civilian Personnel Underexecution ............................................. ¥49,600

9410 Improved Shipboard Mattresses .................................................. 13,000

9415 Defense Joint Accounting System ............................................... ¥7,000

9420 Communications Program Growth .............................................. ¥15,557

NAVY AVIATION DEPOT MAINTENANCE APPRENTICE PROGRAM

Of the funds available for Operation and Maintenance, Navy for aviation depot maintenance, the Committee directs that $4,000,000

shall be available only for apprentice programs to augment the civilian workforce at the Navy’s aviation maintenance depots.

MAN OVERBOARD INDICATOR

The Committee has provided an additional $2,850,000 for the

procurement, installation, training and verification, and maintenance of a man overboard indicating system capable of active integration into a shipboard Personnel Tracking and Monitoring SysVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR644.002 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
62

tem for two U.S. Navy carrier battle groups as a field demonstration. This device should have the capability for modification to include the PTMS characteristics as discussed in the Secretary of the

Navy’s February 1999 Report to the Congress.

UNOLS

Of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance,

Navy, the Committee directs that $3,000,000 shall be made available only for the purpose of funding backlogs in oceanographic research.

NAVAL SEA CADET PROGRAM

The Committee is aware that the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps

has maintained a youth training program in close cooperation with

the Navy for over forty years. In the interest of possible expansion

of this program, the Committee directs that the Secretary of the

Navy provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not

later than December 31, 2000, which lists the benefits of this program to the Navy, and identifies the financial, material and manpower resources that the Navy should make available to the Naval

Sea Cadet Corps in order to expand this program.

USNS HAYES RELOCATION

The Committee is aware of plans by the Navy to relocate the research vessel USNS Hayes. The Committee supports this initiative

and urges the Navy to expedite the relocation of this vessel.

CENTER FOR CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS

The Committee recommends $1,245,000 for the Naval Postgraduate School to expand its Masters degree program to reach additional National Guard officers by providing funds for student assistance, curriculum development and distance learning support.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $2,808,354,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 2,705,658,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,813,091,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +107,433,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,813,091,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $4,737,000 above the amount appropriated for

fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

63

64

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

10050 Initial Issue Gear ........................................................................ 21,300

10050 ULCANS ...................................................................................... 10,000

10050 Lightweight Maintenance Enclosures ....................................... 3,000

10050 Modular Command Post System ............................................... 4,000

10050 Joint Service NBC Defense Equipment Surveillance .............. 3,700

10100 Equipment Maintenance ............................................................ 8,500

10100 Corrosion Control ........................................................................ 6,500

10150 Depot Maintenance ..................................................................... 22,000

10200 Urban Warfare Training-Former George AFB Lease .............. 1,500

Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:

10850 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education ................ 3,000

11200 Recruiting and Advertising ........................................................ 8,100

11300 JROTC ......................................................................................... 700

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

11700 Servicewide Transportation Underexecution ............................ ¥2,000

Undistributed:

11990 MPS replenishment/replacement stocks ................................... 15,000

12015 Contract and Advisory Services ................................................. ¥367

12020 Civilian Personnel Separation ................................................... 2,500

MODULAR LIGHTWEIGHT LOAD-CARRYING EQUIPMENT (MOLLE)

Of the funds provided in Operation and Maintenance, Marine

Corps for initial issue equipment, as discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee directs that $10,000,000 shall only be available for the Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying equipment

(MOLLE).

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL SEPARATION

Of the funds provided in Operation and Maintenance, Marine

Corps, the Committee directs that up to $2,500,000 shall be used

only for civilian separation pay and associated expenses at the Marine Corps Logistics Base at Barstow, California.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $20,896,959,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 22,296,977,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 22,316,797,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +19,820,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,316,797,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. The recommendation is

an increase of $1,419,838,000 above the amount appropriated for

fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

65

66

67

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

12650 Reverse Osmosis Desalinators ................................................... 500

12775 Depot Maintenance—Operating Forces .................................... 15,000

12800 Air Force Battlelabs .................................................................... 4,000

13000 Tethered Aerostat Radar System .............................................. 8,500

13100 TACCSF Theater Air Command and Control Simulation Facility ....................................................................................................... 8,000

13150 JCS Exercises .............................................................................. ¥12,200

13450 Eastern Missile Range Launch Facility Enhancements .......... 10,000

Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:

13975 Depot Maintenance—Mobilization ............................................ 14,100

Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:

14600 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education ................ 3,000

14600 IT Workforce Re-Skilling—Aeronautical Systems Center ....... 2,000

14700 Joint Multi-Dimensional Education & Analysis System (Air

War College) .......................................................................................... 2,000

14700 Support to International Students ............................................ 500

14950 Recruiting and Advertising ........................................................ 8,200

15150 JROTC ......................................................................................... 1,800

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

15350 Acquisition Management ............................................................ ¥8,800

15350 Engine Reliability & Maintainability Program ........................ 4,300

15900 Arms Control ............................................................................... ¥6,900

15950 Manufacturing Technical Assistance Pilot Program ................ 4,000

16000 Personnel Support Programs Underexecution ......................... ¥4,000

16100 William Lehman Aviation Center ............................................. 500

16350 NATO & International Program Growth .................................. ¥1,100

Undistributed:

16450 Classified Programs Undistributed ........................................... 35,574

16500 Readiness Spare Kits .................................................................. 45,000

16580 Headquarters and Administration Growth ............................... ¥75,000

16600 Contract and Advisory Services ................................................. ¥4,633

16655 DFAS Program Growth .............................................................. ¥27,521

16660 Defense Joint Accounting System ............................................. ¥7,000

C–5 SPARE PARTS

The Committee continues to harbor concerns about the persistent

shortages of spare and repair parts needed to support Air Force

aircraft. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of the

Air Force to report to the congressional defense committees no later

than January 31, 2001, and again on September 30, 2001, on the

overall status of the Air Force spare and repair parts program,

with a specific emphasis on the C–5 aircraft, to include whether

the necessary resources are programmed to address future spare

and repair parts requirements.

AIR FORCE CARGO DISTRIBUTION HUB

The Committee is aware of available capacity at the YoungstownWarren Airport, home of the 910th Air Force Reserve Airlift Wing,

that may be employed by the Department of Defense for cargo shipments. Accordingly, the Committee directs that the Commander of

the Air Mobility Command provide a report to the House Committee on Appropriations not later than December 31, 2000, which

assesses the feasibility of using Youngstown-Warren Airport as a

hub for the distribution of Department of Defense cargo.

68

DISPLAYING RETIRED AIRCRAFT

The Committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to provide

all authorized assistance to defray the costs of demilitarization,

preparation, and transportation of a retired AT–38B aircraft for

purposes of putting the aircraft on public display at the Blue Grass

Airport in Lexington, Kentucky.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $11,489,483,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 11,920,069,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 11,803,743,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥116,326,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,803,743,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is an increase of $314,260,000 from the amount appropriated

in fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

69

70

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:

17250 DLA—Generalized Emulation of Microcircuits .......................... 3,000

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

17775 Civil Military—Angel Gate Academy .......................................... 4,200

17775 Civil Military—Youth Development and Leadership Program 500

17800 Classified and Intelligence ........................................................... ¥2,322

17900 DCAA—Pay rate Calculation ...................................................... ¥2,000

18000 DHRA—Joint Recruiting and Advertising Program .................. 2,000

18050 DISA—Information Assurance: IT Training and Education ..... 3,000

18200 DLA—Automated Document Conversion ................................... 20,000

18200 DLA—Security Locks ................................................................... 15,000

18500 DoDEA—Family Advocacy Program ........................................... 4,000

18500 DoDEA—Math Program Skill Set Kits ...................................... 600

18600 JCS—Headquarters Personnel Reduction .................................. ¥522

18650 OEA—Pico Rivera ........................................................................ 2,000

18650 OEA—NAS Cecil Field ................................................................. 3,000

18700 OSD—Command Information Superiority Architectures

(CISA) Program ..................................................................................... 5,000

18700 OSD—Headquarters Personnel Reduction ................................. ¥4,446

18700 OSD—Information Assurance: JCOATS–IO .............................. 1,600

18700 OSD—Information Assurance: Critical Infrastructure Protection ......................................................................................................... 10,300

18700 OSD—Energy Savings Performance Contracts .......................... 4,000

18700 OSD—CTMA: Depot Level Activities ......................................... 10,000

18700 OSD—CTMA: Wearable Computers ........................................... 850

18700 OSD—Special Subsistence Stipend ............................................. 5,000

18820 WHS—Low priority programs ..................................................... ¥10,000

18860 Special Programs .......................................................................... ¥200,000

Undistributed:

19020 Impact Aid Program ..................................................................... 35,000

19070 Defense Agencies Headquarters Personnel Reduction .............. ¥12,586

19160 Defense Joint Accounting System ............................................... ¥13,500

BERYLLIUM WORK-RELATED ILLNESSES

Beryllium is a metal that has long been an important component

of nuclear explosives, aircraft, missiles and other weapons due to

its lightness and strength. The Administration has proposed a

package of compensation for the employees of contractors and vendors to the Department of Energy who are suffering from chronic

beryllium disease and other work-related illnesses associated with

the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The Committee believes it

would be prudent to have an understanding of whether the use of

beryllium in non-nuclear applications for the Department of Defense has resulted in a similar situation for the Defense workforce.

The Committee bill directs (in Section 8111 of the General Provisions) that the Secretary of Defense submit a report to the congressional defense committees on beryllium-related illnesses, to include

information on incidences of beryllium-related illnesses, potential

costs of compensation of Defense workforce employees for such illnesses, and whether such compensation is justified or recommended by the Secretary of Defense.

DOD SCHOOLS

The Committee commends everyone involved in the DoD school

system for recent achievements that have placed it among the best

performing schools in our nation. The Secretary of Defense testified

before the Committee this year that the DoD school system is perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR644.002 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
71

forming ‘‘magnificently’’. Maintaining, and where needed, improving the education system supporting our military families must

continue to be a high priority for the DoD and Congress.

The Committee is concerned that the compensation and allowance structure for DoD school teachers has evolved over time to a

point where there may be actual or perceived inequities for different personnel stationed at the same location overseas. The Committee is also concerned that teachers stationed overseas have to

pay high out-of-pocket medical costs for themselves and their dependents that would not apply if they taught in the United States,

and this has become a major disincentive for preventative and follow-up health care. Either of these issues could adversely impact

the Department’s ability to sustain its current level of excellence in

the military school system. The Committee, therefore, directs that

the Secretary of Defense submit a report to the congressional defense committees by January 15, 2001 on DoD school teacher compensation/allowances and fees for teacher/dependent medical services. The report should include his recommendations and legislative

proposals, if appropriate, for improving the current compensation

system, removing inequities that may exist, and improving the access to quality health care for military school teachers.

FAMILY ADVOCACY

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 over the budget request

in the Department of Defense Dependents Education account, only

for enhancements to Family Advocacy programs for at-risk youth

such as KidsPeace National.

YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

The Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 over the

budget request for the Youth Developmental and Leadership program, only to develop a safety net program to serve as the followup activity for the program initiated under Public Law 105–174.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,469,176,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 1,521,418,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,596,418,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +75,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,596,418,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $127,242,000 above the $1,469,176,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

72

73

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

19640 Forces Readiness Operations Support/Integrated Training

Area Management ................................................................................. 700

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

20010 Recruiting and Advertising .......................................................... 12,000

Other Adjustments:

20110 Real Property Maintenance ......................................................... 30,000

20140 CINC Overseas Deployment Training ........................................ 2,800

20145 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System .................................. 9,000

20150 Additional Full Time Support Technicians ................................. 20,500

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $958,978,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 960,946,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 992,646,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +31,700,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $992,646,000 for

Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation is

an increase of $33,668,000 above the $958,978,000 appropriated for

fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

74

75

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

21600 Ship Depot Maintenance ............................................................ 10,000

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

22300 Military Manpower and Personnel Management/Recruiting

and Advertising ..................................................................................... 6,700

Other Adjustments:

22670 Real Property Maintenance ....................................................... 15,000

FORT WORTH NAVAL AIR STATION

The Committee has provided additional funds for Real Property

Maintenance for the Navy Reserve and directs that $1,250,000 be

provided for demolition of selected buildings at the Fort Worth

Naval Air Station.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $138,911,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 133,959,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 145,959,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +12,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $145,959,000 for

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $7,048,000 above the $138,911,000

appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

76

77

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

23500 Operating Forces/Single Storage Site for NBC Equipment ..... 1,800

23600 Real Property Maintenance ....................................................... 2,000

23650 Depot Maintenance ..................................................................... 5,000

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

23850 Recruiting and Advertising ........................................................ 2,000

Other Adjustments:

24200 Increased Use of Guard and Reserve ........................................ 1,200

NBC DEFENSE EQUIPMENT

The Committee recommends $1,800,000 over the budget request,

only to support the single site storage facility program in consolidating the storage and management of nuclear, biological, and

chemical defense equipment.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,782,591,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 1,885,859,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,921,659,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +35,800,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,921,659,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $139,068,000 above the

$1,782,591,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

78

79

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

24970 Depot Maintenance ..................................................................... 15,000

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

25400 Recruiting and Advertising ........................................................ 4,000

Other Adjustments:

25600 Real Property Maintenance ....................................................... 10,000

25640 RED HORSE Unit ...................................................................... 1,800

25645 Technician Pilot Retention Allowance ....................................... 5,000

MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE

The Committee has provided additional funds for Real Property Maintenance for the Air Force Reserve and directs that $2,000,000

be provided for required roof repairs for hangars and support buildings at March Air Reserve Base (ARB), and for navigational aids

upgrades at March Inland Port.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $3,161,378,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 3,182,335,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 3,263,235,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +80,900,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,263,235,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $101,857,000 above the

$3,161,378,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

80

81

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

26400 Base Operations/Integrated Training Area Management ....... 2,400

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

26680 Information Management/NGB Nationwide Dedicated Fiber

Optic Network ....................................................................................... 5,000

26740 Recruiting and Advertising ........................................................ 12,000

Other Adjustments:

26810 Additional Full Time Support Technicians ............................... 30,500

26870 Real Property Maintenance ....................................................... 15,000

26890 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System ................................ 12,000

26945 National Emergency and Disaster Information Center ........... 1,000

26946 R–2000 Engine Flush Systems .................................................. 3,000

NATIONAL EMERGENCY AND DISASTER INFORMATION CENTER

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the National Emergency and Disaster Information Center to support the National

Guard’s mission as first responder to emergencies and the Weapons

of Mass Destruction (WMD) program. The Center would provide

supporting functions in a number of areas to include consequence

management for WMD incidents, continuity of operations, critical

asset and infrastructure assurance, and disaster response. The

Committee understands that the Center will have the capability to

identify, analyze, and maintain a database of best practices and

lessons learned associated with the activities performed by Guard

personnel, such as the WMD Civil Support Teams. The Center

should be managed by the Adjutant General of an eastern Division

state, as determined by the National Guard Bureau, who will coordinate and consult with other federal, state and local government

agencies to ensure effective and efficient operation of the Center.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $3,241,138,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 3,446,375,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 3,480,375,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +34,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,480,375,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $239,237,000 above the

$3,241,138,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:

82

83

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

27800 Real Property Maintenance ....................................................... 5,000

27850 Depot Maintenance ..................................................................... 16,500

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

28100 Recruiting and Advertising ........................................................ 5,000

Other Adjustments:

28210 C–130 Operations ....................................................................... 1,500

28240 National Guard State Partnership Program ............................ 1,000

28255 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System ................................ 3,000

28260 Laser Leveling ............................................................................. 2,000

C–130 OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends a total of $1,500,000 over the budget request for operation and maintenance costs to support operational capabilities of the 125th Jacksonville, Florida C–130 unit.

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,722,600,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 4,100,577,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 4,100,577,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,100,575,000

for the Overseas Contingency Operations transfer Fund. The recommendation is an increase of $2,377,977,000 above the amount

appropriated for fiscal year 2000. The funding in this paragraph

provides for ongoing DoD Operations in Southwest Asia, Bosnia

and Kosovo.

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION AND BUDGET EXECUTION MATERIALS

The Committee notes the efforts of the Department of Defense to

comply with direction found in the fiscal year 2000 Department of

Defense Appropriations Act to establish justification books specifically to support the contingency operations budget request. However, to fully justify the budget request, the Committee directs that

DoD include in the fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund a budget justification

exhibit which indicates the appropriation accounts which underlie

the requirements for the funds requested in this account. This exhibit should indicate for each appropriation account, for each service, and for each contingency the amount of funds requested for

this account.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED

FORCES

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $7,621,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 8,574,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 8,574,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,574,000 for

the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The recommendation is an increase of $953,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.

84

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $378,170,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 389,932,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 389,932,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $389,932,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $11,762,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year

2000.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $284,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 294,038,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 294,038,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $294,038,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $10,038,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year

2000.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $376,800,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 376,300,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 376,300,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $376,300,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is a

decrease of $500,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year

2000.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $25,370,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 23,412,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 23,412,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,412,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is

a decrease of $1,958,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal

year 2000.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED

DEFENSE SITES

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $239,214,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 186,499,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 196,499,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +10,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $196,499,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The recommendation is a decrease of $42,715,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.

85

NIKE BATTERY 55

The Committee understands that the City of Rancho Palos

Verdes has discovered lead contamination on property that, prior

to its transfer, was used by the Department of the Army as a rifle

range. Given that the contamination has forced the local community to close the city’s park, interpretive center and whale watching

site, the Committee encourages the Army to address this problem

as quickly and as completely as possible.

SANTA CLARITA

The Committee is concerned about the environmental contamination of the Porta Bella site, a former munitions manufacturing and

testing facility in Santa Clarita, California. The Committee requests that the Army examine this issue and, if appropriate, begin

the necessary remediation.

NEWMARK

The Committee is concerned with the lack of progress the Army,

the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Justice,

the City of San Bernardino, and the State of California have made

toward resolving the litigation regarding groundwater contamination at the Newmark and Muscoy Superfund site in California. The

Committee encourages the parties to continue their progress towards satisfactorily resolving the litigation and to complete actions

to fully characterize the groundwater contamination and identify

potential sources in order to protect this valuable water supply.

The Committee is interested in providing the encouragement necessary to bring this issue to closure.

DEPLETED URANIUM ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

The Committee understands that production of depleted uranium

penetrators at the Army’s STARMET site ended in September

1999, yet there is not an agreed-upon plan for environmental restoration of the site as required by federal regulations and law. The

Committee directs the Under Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than November 23, 2000 which defines the Army’s responsibilities for environmental restoration of the site, if any, and how the Army plans to

meet them. The report shall identify funding requirements for the

restoration and how the Army has financed them, as well as a detailed schedule for completion of all work.

OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $55,800,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 64,900,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 56,900,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥8,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $56,900,000 for

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The recommendation is an increase of $1,100,000 from the amount appropriated in

fiscal year 2000.

86

FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $460,500,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 458,400,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 433,400,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥25,000,000

This appropriation funds the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Recommendation Change from

request

Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination—Russia ............................. 152,800 162,800 +10,000

Weapons Storage Security—Russia ............................................... 89,700 89,700 ............................

Weapons Transportation Security—Russia .................................... 14,000 14,000 ............................

Fissile Material Storage Facility—Russia ...................................... 57,400 57,400 ............................

Fissile Material Processing and Packaging—Russia .................... 9,300 9,300 ............................

Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium—Russia ...................... 32,100 32,100 ............................

Strategic Nuclear Arms Elimination—Ukraine ............................... 29,100 34,100 +5,000

BW Proliferation Prevention ............................................................ 12,000 12,000 ............................

Chemical Weapons Destruction—Russia ....................................... 35,000 0 ¥35,000

Defense and Military Contacts ....................................................... 14,000 9,000 ¥5,000

Other Program Support ................................................................... 13,000 13,000 ............................

FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION

The Department recommended $458,400,000 for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction programs. The Committee recommends $433,400,000, a net decrease of $25,000,000. The Committee has recommended program changes in accordance with the

House-passed National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4205).

QUALITY OF LIFE ENHANCEMENTS, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $300,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... ............................

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 480,000,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. 480,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $480,000,000 for

the Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense account. The recommendation is an increase of $180,000,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

The Committee notes that the administration has not requested

funds for this account despite the substantial backlogs of real property maintenance as noted elsewhere in this report. To address this

backlog, the Committee recommends additional funding of

$480,000,000 above the budget request, to be distributed as follows:

Army ....................................................................................................... $282,500,000

Navy ........................................................................................................ 70,000,000

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... 47,000,000

Air Force ................................................................................................. 70,000,000

Defense-Wide .......................................................................................... 10,500,000

(87)

TITLE III

PROCUREMENT

ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY

The fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense procurement budget

request totals $59,266,603,000. The accompanying bill recommends

$61,558,679,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of

$2,292,076,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget estimate and is

$8,577,965,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 2000. The

table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee’s

recommendations.

88

89

SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS

Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in

the project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases ‘‘only

for’’ or ‘‘only to’’ in this report are congressional interest items for

the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each

of these items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated

amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. These items

remain special interest items whether or not they are repeated in

a subsequent conference report.

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

Adjustments of the classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.

COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS UPGRADES

Fielded military radios and communications equipment systems

still require upgrades and improvements, when cost effective, to

improve operational capability and dependability as well as reduce

operations and support costs. The Committee is aware of Military

Standard 188–141A which includes an approved miniaturized,

multi-functional, digital communications technology based on compressor and expander techniques that dramatically improves quality of voice and data communications over both wired and wireless

networks. The Committee directs the Department of Defense to

continue to use this technology, when cost effective, to upgrade and

improve current communications systems, such as SINCGARS,

JTRS, ARC–190 and PRC–104.

BALLISTIC ENGINEERED ARMORED RESPONSE VEHICLES

The Committee is aware of the development of a Ballistic Engineered Armored Response vehicle that may be able to enhance rescue and combat readiness by providing armored transportation to

as many as 12–14 units and also provide the capacity to rescue 20

to 30 people during a combat and rescue mission. The Committee

directs the Department of Defense to consider the desirability, utility, and cost effectiveness of such vehicles for the services.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,451,688,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 1,323,262,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,547,082,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +223,820,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of tactical and utility

airplanes and helicopters, including associated electronics, electronic warfare, and communications equipment and armament,

modification of in-service aircraft, ground support equipment, components and parts such as spare engines, transmissions gear boxes,

and sensor equipment. It also funds related training devices such

as combat flight simulators and production base support.

90

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In Thousands of dollars]

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

UH–60 BLACKHAWK (MYP) ...................................................................................... 64,651 183,371 +118,720

Army Reserve: 8 UH–60L aircraft .................................................................. .................... .................... +78,520

National Guard: 3 UH–60Q aircraft .............................................................. .................... .................... +40,200

TH–67 TRAINING HELICOPTER ................................................................................ 0 18,000 +18,000

Procure training helicopters .......................................................................... 0 0 +18,000

AH–64 MODS ........................................................................................................... 18,516 52,616 +34,100

Vibration Management Enhancement Program ............................................. .................... .................... +7,000

Oil debris detection and burn off system ..................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

Longbow internal auxillary fuel tank ............................................................. .................... .................... +10,000

Strap pack ..................................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,300

Funny harness ................................................................................................ .................... .................... +3,400

Aerial rocket control system .......................................................................... .................... .................... +4,400

UH–60 MODS .......................................................................................................... 3,021 15,021 +12,000

National Guard: Firehawk Kits ....................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Extended range fuel system .......................................................................... .................... .................... +9,000

AIRBORNE AVONICS ................................................................................................ 60,042 63,042 +3,000

Airborne video recorder and image transceiver ............................................ .................... .................... +3,000

AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 14,000 +14,000

ASET IV ........................................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

AN/AVR–2A Laser detection ........................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 14,000 +14,000

AN/AVS–6 night vision upgrade .................................................................... .................... .................... +14,000

AIRBORNE COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................. 0 10,000 +10,000

ARC–220 ........................................................................................................ 0 .................... 10,000

KIOWA WARRIOR LIVE-FIRE TESTING

Live-fire testing legislation (10 U.S.C 2366) requires realistic

live-fire testing of major Department of Defense weapon systems.

The intent of the legislation is to conduct tests early in the production of the weapon system in order to ensure adequacy of design

and to allow incorporation of design changes, if any, as a program

moves into full rate production. Since the waiver authority for this

legislation is very narrow, the DoD has concluded that it must do

live-fire testing on the Kiowa Warrior helicopter for the cost of approximately $6 million. Kiowa Warrior entered production in 1992;

the last production contract was signed in fiscal year 1999 and deliveries will be completed this year. Given that the Army does not

plan on procuring additional Kiowa Warrior aircraft and plans on

retiring all of the Kiowa Warriors helicopters by 2013, the Committee strongly questions the need for conducting live fire tests on

the platform. The Committee directs that no funds may be spent

on live fire testing on the Kiowa Warrior, until the Commander-inChief of the Joint Forces Command certifies that such tests must

be conducted to fulfill operational requirements for the aircraft.

GROUND PROXIMITY WARNING SYSTEM

The Committee is concerned about recent mishap rates in Army

aviation, particularly those that involve loss of life or aircraft, and

recognizes that many of these losses occurred as a result of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) caused by loss of situational

awareness. The Committee is aware that the FAA has mandated

91

use of an electronic warning device known as the Ground Proximity

Warning System (GPWS) for all passenger-carrying aircraft and

that has resulted in a 93 percent reduction in CFIT. The Committee is also aware that the Navy and the Air Force are now installing GPWS on all aircraft, but the Army continues to reject the

use of this device. The Committee directs the Secretary of the

Army to report by April 1, 2001 on the viability of installing GPWS

on Army transport helicopters. The report shall include a cost analysis of the latest generation of GPWS on a single circuit card and

an acquisition plan.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:

92

93

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,322,305,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 1,295,728,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,240,347,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥55,381,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, and anti-tank/assault missile systems. Also included are major components, modifications, targets, test equipment and production base support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In Thousands of Dollars]

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

ARMY TACTICAL MSL SYS (ATACMS)—SYS SUM ................................................... 15,044 102,044 +87,000

Procure 100 ATACMS Block I missiles .......................................................... .................... .................... +77,000

Block IV Unitary Warhead .............................................................................. .................... .................... +10,000

ATACMS BLKII SYSTEM SUMMARY .......................................................................... 230,334 80,000 ¥150,334

Technical issues with seeker (Note: Additional funds are provided in PE

0604786A for the development of a P3I seeker) ..................................... .................... .................... ¥150,334

MULTI PURPOSE INDV MUN (AP–CY) ...................................................................... 3,547 0 ¥3,547

Technical issues with system ........................................................................ .................... .................... ¥3,547

STINGER MODS ........................................................................................................ 21,838 33,338 +11,500

Stinger Block I modifications ........................................................................ .................... .................... +11,500

SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE MODERNIZATION

The fiscal year 2001 budget terminates the Stinger Block II program. The Committee understands that the Army’s decision to terminate Stinger Block II was based not on new threat analysis or

a change in requirements. Instead, the program was used as a ‘‘bill

payer’’ for Army Transformation. The Committee is concerned because with the termination of Stinger Block II, the Army budget

includes no funds to modernize its Army Short Range Air Defense

(SHORAD) forces. The Committee does not recommend funding for

Stinger Block II, but has provided additional funding for Stinger

Block I to mitigate the risk to SHORAD forces in the near-term.

Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to

submit no later than January 15, 2001 a comprehensive plan for

the modernization of the SHORAD force. The plan should include:

an analysis of the threat against the current, mid-term (Interim

Brigade) and future threat (Objective) forces, the alternatives for

meeting the current and emerging threat, the cost of each alternative, and the Army’s plan to fund SHORAD modernization to ensure that it is synchronized with the Army’s Transformation plan.

JAVELIN

The Army requested $372,248,000 for Javelin missiles. The Committee recommends the budget request; however, the Committee

also recommends rescinding $150,000,000 of the $347,677,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2000 for Javelin.

Last year, the Army requested authorization to enter into a

multi-year contract for Javelin missiles. Since Javelin was experiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR644.003 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
94

encing technical problems, the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000, directed that the Army may only enter into

a multi-year contract thirty days after the Secretary of Defense certified that all outstanding technical issues were resolved. Additionally, since the Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan did not sufficiently address congressional concerns, the conference agreement

also directed that the Army could not enter into a Javelin multiyear contract until thirty days after the Secretary of Defense certified that the planned procurement quantities for Javelin are correct.

To date, the Secretary of Defense has not submitted the required

certification to proceed with a Javelin multi-year contract. As a

consequence, contract award has slipped by at least six months, resulting in excess funding which the Committee proposes to rescind.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:

95

96

PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT

VEHICLES, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,586,490,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 1,874,638,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,634,786,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +760,148,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of tanks; personnel

and cargo carriers; fighting vehicles; tracked recovery vehicles; selfpropelled and towed howitzers; machine guns; mortars; modification of in-service equipment, initial spares; and production base

support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In Thousands of Dollars]

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

BRADLEY BASE SUSTAINMENT ................................................................................ 359,389 440,689 +81,300

National Guard: Bradley A0 to ODS .............................................................. .................... .................... +81,300

MEDIUM ARMORED VEHICLE FAMILY: MAVF ........................................................... 537,077 600,077 +63,000

Fully fund first interim brigade ..................................................................... .................... .................... +63,000

IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88 MOD) ........................................................... 68,385 76,685 +8,300

Army Reserve: Additional vehicles ................................................................. .................... .................... +8,300

AVLB SLEP ............................................................................................................... 15,252 0 ¥15,252

Terminate program ........................................................................................ .................... .................... ¥15,252

ARMY TRANSFORMATION: MEDIUM ARMORED VEHICLE ......................................... 0 .................... +600,000

Procures 2nd IBCT set of MAV ...................................................................... .................... .................... +600,000

MACHINE GUN, 5.56MM (SAW) ............................................................................... 0 .................... +18,300

M249 SAW ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... +18,300

GRENADE LAUNCHER, AUTO, 40MM, MK19–3 ........................................................ 11,835 14,335 +2,500

MK–19 MOD 3 ................................................................................................ .................... .................... +2,500

5.56 CARBINE M4 ................................................................................................... 5,190 7,190 +2,000

Additional systems ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

WOLVERINE—HEAVY ASSAULT BRIDGE

The Army requested no funds for the Wolverine heavy assault

bridge. The Committee understands that the Army’s decision to

terminate Wolverine was not based on a change in requirements,

but rather on the need to realign resources to support Army Transformation. In addition, although the Congress appropriated

$82,000,000 for Wolverine in fiscal year 2000, the Committee understands that the Army does not intend to use the funds for the

purpose for which they were appropriated. The Committee has included a General Provision, Section 8114, that directs the Army to

use the fiscal year 2000 funds to procure Wolverine. Additionally,

Section 8114 transfers $15,000,000 of unobligated fiscal year 2000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army funds appropriated for the Grizzly minefield breacher program to the Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army appropriations, only to procure additional Wolverine heavy assault bridges.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:

97

98

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,204,120,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 1,131,323,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,227,386,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +96,063,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modification of in-service stock, and related production base support including the maintenance, expansion, and modernization of industrial facilities and equipment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In Thousands of Dollars]

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

CTG .50 CAL. ALL TYPES ........................................................................................ 10,646 20,646 +10,000

.50 Caliber SLAP ............................................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

M903 and M962 ammunition ........................................................................ .................... .................... +6,000

CTG CAL .50 API MK211 MOD 0 ............................................................................. 1,987 3,987 +2,000

Additional ammunition .................................................................................. .................... .................... +2,000

CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 57,780 66,380 +8,600

M919 ammunition .......................................................................................... .................... .................... +8,600

CTG 30 MM, ALL TYPES .......................................................................................... 9,517 14,517 +5,000

HEDP ammunition for Apache helicopters .................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

NONLETHAL WEAPONS CAPABILITY SET .................................................................. 8,397 10,397 +2,000

Portable vehicle arresting barrier systems ................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 28,673 36,643 +7,970

M721/M767 ammunition ................................................................................ .................... .................... +7,970

CTG MORTAR 120MM ILLUM XM930 W/MTSQ FZ ................................................... 0 5,600 +5,600

M930/M983 ammunition ................................................................................ .................... .................... +5,600

PROJ ARTY 155MM SADARM M898 ......................................................................... 14,907 0 ¥14,907

Terminate program ........................................................................................ .................... .................... ¥14,907

PROJ ARTY 155MM HE M107 .................................................................................. 35,178 45,178 +10,000

Additional ammunition .................................................................................. .................... .................... +10,000

MODULAR ARTILLERY CHARGE SYSTEM (MACS) ..................................................... 27,432 37,432 +10,000

Additional ammunition .................................................................................. .................... .................... +10,000

MINE AT M87 (VOLCANO) ........................................................................................ 0 20,000 +20,000

Additional ammunition .................................................................................. .................... .................... +20,000

WIDE AREA MUNITIONS ........................................................................................... 7,284 12,284 +5,000

Additional ammunition .................................................................................. .................... .................... +5,000

BUNKER DEFEATING MUNITION (BDM) .................................................................... 0 10,000 +10,000

SMAW–D, Bunker Defeat Munition ................................................................ .................... .................... +10,000

ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................. 152,767 158,567 +5,800

Additional ammunition .................................................................................. .................... .................... +5,800

DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ...................................................................... 16,603 17,603 +1,000

Fighting position excavator ........................................................................... .................... .................... +1,000

GRENADES, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 20,260 24,760 +4,500

M83 Smoke Launcher/LVOSS Smoke Launcher ............................................. .................... .................... +4,500

PROVISION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ................................................................... 47,748 51,248 +3,500

Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant ................................................................ .................... .................... +3,500

AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT

While the Committee is disappointed with the Army’s decision to

implement a Triad structure for ammunition management instead

of vesting responsibility in a single executive, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report back to the Committee

within three months of enactment, on the effectiveness of the Triad

at managing ammunition effectively and efficiently.

99

The Secretary should determine the effectiveness based on the

following metrics: percentage of procurement funds spent to purchase hardware, especially precision munitions, compared to the

amount spent on administrative or overhead costs; a list of every

decision made by the Triad since its inception in September, 1998

including: date when an issue was first raised, and ultimately resolved; the cost of that decision in both dollars and manpower

hours, either in anticipated savings or increased expenditures; the

number of decisions brought to the attention of the Triad, and how

many were unresolved and forwarded to the superior officer; examples showing whether the Triad is meeting the objectives for efficient development and production of precision munitions set forth

in objectives 1, 5 and 7 on page 16 of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Study.

The report is also to include readiness measurements such as:

munition family life cycle time reductions; on-time delivery of quality ammunition products to customers; reduction in backlog of delinquent deliveries, and modernization of the production base. Performance measurements such as: first time pass for first article

product; first time pass for lot acceptance testing; and first time

pass for period inspection. Warfighter and logistics support measurements such as: horizontal technology insertion success; increased fill to Brigade Combat Team munition requirements; and

increased fill of war reserve stockpile with precision munitions.

SENSE AND DESTROY ARMOR MUNITION

The Army requested $14,907,000 for Sense and Destroy Armor

Munition (SADARM). The Committee recommends no funds. The

SADARM program, which has been in development for almost

twenty years and has cost almost two billion dollars to date, has

yet to pass an operational test.

The statement of the managers accompanying the conference report on the Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 directed that none of

the fiscal year 2000 funds for SADARM may be obligated until

Army’s Operational Test and Evaluation Command (now known as

Army Test and Evaluation Command) certified that SADARM had

met its reliability requirement of 80 percent. Preliminary results

from the most recent test in May indicate that the 80 percent reliability requirement for SADARM was not met.

More importantly, the current Army outyear budget plan does

not fund SADARM production after fiscal year 2001, and no funding is provided for the SADARM Product Improvement Program

after fiscal year 2001. Since the Army budget plan terminates the

program and the system has not met its reliability requirement,

the Committee recommends no funding for SADARM.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:

100

101

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $3,738,934,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 3,795,870,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 4,254,564,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +458,694,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of: (a) tactical and

commercial vehicles, including trucks, semi-trailers, and trailers of

all types to provide mobility and utility support to field forces and

the worldwide logistical system; (b) communications and electronics

equipment of all types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile strategic and tactical communication equipment; (c) other support

equipment such as chemical defensive equipment, floating and rail

equipment, generators and power units, material handling equipment, medical support equipment, special equipment for user testing, and non-system training devices. In each of these activities,

funds are also included for the modification of in-service equipment, investment spares and repair parts, and production base

support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In Thousands of Dollars]

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

SEMITRAILER FB BB/CONT TRANS 22 1/2 T ........................................................... 12,135 5,035 ¥7,100

Program slip .................................................................................................. .................... .................... ¥7,100

HI MOB MULTI-PURP WHLD VEH (HMMWV) ............................................................ 110,746 125,046 +14,300

Transformation: Additional HMMWV’s ............................................................ .................... .................... +9,300

Army Reserve: Additional HMMWV’s .............................................................. .................... .................... +5,000

FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) ............................................................ 438,256 475,556 +37,300

National Guard: Additional FMTVs ................................................................. .................... .................... +35,000

Army Reserves: Additional FMTV’s (5 ton) .................................................... .................... .................... +2,300

FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT ......................................... 14,830 16,030 +1,200

Army Reserve: Firetruck HEMTT ..................................................................... .................... .................... +1,200

FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ....................................................... 166,119 191,119 +25,000

M3 CROP ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... +10,000

Movement Tracking System ........................................................................... .................... .................... +15,000

TRUCK, TRACTOR, LINE HAUL, M915/M916 ............................................................ 42,989 44,589 +1,600

Army Reserve: Additional M915A3 Tractors .................................................. .................... .................... +1,600

MODIFICATION OF IN SV EQUIP ............................................................................... 28,910 36,910 +8,000

A8020 fuel injection test stand .................................................................... .................... .................... +8,000

ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (TAC VEH) .............................................................. 1,853 2,853 +1,000

TRU-Hitches ................................................................................................... .................... .................... +1,000

COMBAT IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM ....................................................................... 13,096 18,096 +5,000

Battlefield Combat ID .................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

SHF TERM ................................................................................................................ 38,307 14,307 ¥24,000

Schedule delay ............................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥24,000

SAT TERM, EMUT (SPACE) ...................................................................................... 3,475 13,475 +10,000

SPITFIRE terminals ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

SMART-T (SPACE) .................................................................................................... 48,594 32,094 ¥16,500

Schedule slip ................................................................................................. .................... .................... ¥16,500

GLOBAL BRDCST SVC–GBS ..................................................................................... 9,286 0 ¥9,286

Schedule slip ................................................................................................. .................... .................... ¥9,286

ARMY DATA DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (DATA RADIO) ................................................. 32,675 66,875 +34,200

Army Transformation: EPLRS ......................................................................... .................... .................... +24,200

National Guard: EPLRS .................................................................................. .................... .................... +10,000

SINCGARS FAMILY ................................................................................................... 18,340 51,840 +33,500

Army Transformation: SINCGARS ................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

National Guard: SINCGARS ............................................................................ .................... .................... +20,000

102

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

Transformation: FHMUX ................................................................................. .................... .................... +3,500

CUS MOD PROGRAM (WIN T/T) ............................................................................... 113,951 122,951 +9,000

TS–21 Blackjack (AN/UXC–10) ...................................................................... .................... .................... +9,000

SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM COMM/ELECTRONICS ..................................... 4,374 19,374 +15,000

Observer Controller Communications System (OCCS) (Note: The upgrades

to the OCCS should be JTRS compliant and should support both the

FORSCOM/TRADOC land mobile radio requirements at the NTC) ............ .................... .................... +15,000

INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP .................................................. 54,374 75,374 +21,000

Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection Device ........................ .................... .................... +8,000

Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment .................................... .................... .................... +13,000

PENTAGON INFORMATION MGT AND TELECOM ........................................................ 65,412 17,262 ¥48,150

Program slip .................................................................................................. .................... .................... ¥48,150

PROPHET GROUND (TIARA) ..................................................................................... 9,571 12,571 +3,000

Procurement of 5 systems for high priority CONUS units ............................ .................... .................... +3,000

TACTICAL EXPLOITATION OF NATIONAL CAPABILITIES ............................................. 12,853 8,353 ¥4,500

Discoverer II ................................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥4,500

SHORTSTOP ............................................................................................................. 0 20,000 +20,000

Shortstop (NOTE: The Committee encourages the Army to fund Shortstop

in future budget submissions) ................................................................. .................... .................... +20,000

FAAD GBS ................................................................................................................ 24,188 27,188 +3,000

Air Defense Alerting system for Medium Brigade ......................................... .................... .................... +3,000

NIGHT VISION DEVICES ........................................................................................... 34,146 59,546 +25,400

Miniature Eyesafe Laser Infrared Observation Set ........................................ .................... .................... +5,000

AN/PVS–7 goggles ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +12,000

25mm image intensification tubes ............................................................... .................... .................... +8,400

MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ..................................................................... 22,935 31,025 +8,090

Army Transformation: ABCS integration ........................................................ .................... .................... +8,090

STAMIS TACTICAL COMPUTERS (STACOMP) ............................................................ 40,015 40,015 0

STANDARD INTEGRATED CMD POST SYSTEM .......................................................... 35,971 47,471 +11,500

Army Transformation: SICPS .......................................................................... .................... .................... +11,500

AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ................................................................... 172,051 181,051 +9,000

NG Distance Learning Courseware ................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

Ammunition AIT .............................................................................................. .................... .................... +5,000

RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYSTEM (RCAS) ............................................ 91,495 99,495 +8,000

Additional funds ............................................................................................ .................... .................... +8,000

GEN SMK MECH:MTRZD DUAL PURP M56 .............................................................. 11,369 15,369 +4,000

M56 Smoke generator .................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

RIBBON BRIDGE ...................................................................................................... 15,669 29,169 +13,500

Army Reserve: ribbon bridges ........................................................................ .................... .................... +13,500

KIT, STANDARD TELEOPERATING ............................................................................. 688 10,688 +10,000

Vehicle Teleoperation kits .............................................................................. .................... .................... +10,000

LAUNDRIES, SHOWERS AND LATRINES .................................................................... 12,580 17,080 +4,500

Laundry Advanced System ............................................................................. .................... .................... +4,500

DISTRIBUTION SYS, PET & WATER .......................................................................... 0 3,000 +3,000

Lightweight tactical water purifier ................................................................ .................... .................... +3,000

COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ................................................................................... 31,567 37,767 +6,200

Portable Low-Power Blood Cooling and Storage Devices ............................. .................... .................... +2,200

Rapid Intravenous Infusion Pump ................................................................. .................... .................... +4,000

ROLLER, VIBRATORY, SELF-PROPELLED (CCE) ....................................................... 4,671 11,671 +7,000

Army Reserves: additional systems ............................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Additional systems ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR .......................................................................................... 8,282 10,582 +2,300

Army Reserve: additional systems ................................................................. .................... .................... +2,300

DEPLOYABLE UNIVERSAL COMBAT EARTH MOVERS ............................................... 14,146 24,346 +10,200

28 additional DEUCES ................................................................................... .................... .................... +10,200

CONST EQUIP SLEP ................................................................................................. 1,986 16,986 +15,000

Service Life Extension Program of Reserve Component commercial construction equipment .................................................................................. .................... .................... +10,000

Extend Service Life of Commercial Construction Equipment in the XVIII

Airborne Corps ........................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (CONST EQUIP) ...................................................... 2,635 6,635 +4,000

National Guard: Ultimate Building Machines ............................................... .................... .................... +2,000

Ultimate Building Machines .......................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

SMALL TUG .............................................................................................................. 0 9,000 +9,000

3 tugs ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... +9,000

103

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

FLOATING CRANES ................................................................................................... 0 15,000 +15,000

Floating crane barges .................................................................................... .................... .................... +15,000

GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ................................................................... 85,886 90,886 +5,000

3000 2KW military tactical generators ......................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MHE) ..................................................................... 1,231 3,731 +2,500

Laser leveling equipment .............................................................................. .................... .................... +2,500

CTC INSTRUMENTATION SUPPORT ........................................................................... 81,845 93,945 +12,100

MOUT .............................................................................................................. .................... .................... +3,600

Targetry electronics for the Multi-purpose Range Complex-Heavy ............... .................... .................... +3,500

DFIRST for National Guard Installation #21A95 ........................................... .................... .................... +5,000

TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM ............................................................................ 91,937 104,937 +13,000

National Guard: engagement skills trainer ................................................... .................... .................... +8,000

Laser Markmanship Training System ............................................................ .................... .................... +5,000

CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER ........................................................................ 81,160 0 ¥81,160

Test unfunded ................................................................................................ .................... .................... ¥81,160

MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ..................................................... 28,008 31,008 +3,000

Laser Leveling equipment .............................................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH) ....................................................................... 2,367 8,367 +6,000

Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System (PEPS) ....................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

ARMY TRANSFORMATION: OTHER SUPPORT EQUIP ................................................. 0 0 +200,000

Procures support equipment for the 2nd IBCT ............................................. .................... .................... +200,000

UP-ARMORED HIGH MOBILITY MULTI-PURPOSE WHEELED VEHICLES

The budget request includes no funds for Up-armored High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV). However, the

Committee understands that the Army has an unsatisfied requirement for Up-armored HMMWV’s. The Committee directs the Army

to submit no later than July 10, 2000, a report which outlines the

Army’s acquisition objective for Up-armored HMMWV’s and the

current inventory levels. The report is also to include the funding

required to alleviate the shortfall.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:

104

105

106

107

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $8,662,655,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 7,963,858,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 8,179,564,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +215,706,000

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of aircraft

and related support equipment and programs; flight simulators;

equipment to modify in-service aircraft to extend their service life,

eliminate safety hazards, and improve their operational effectiveness; and spare parts and ground support equipment for all end

items procured by this appropriation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

SH–60R ................................................................................................................... 162,327 152,327 ¥10,000

Non-recurring cost growth ............................................................................. .................... .................... ¥5,000

Avionics support equipment deferment ......................................................... .................... .................... ¥5,000

UC–35 ..................................................................................................................... .................... 15,200 +15,200

Additional aircraft .......................................................................................... .................... .................... +15,200

KC–130J .................................................................................................................. 154,818 231,118 +76,300

Additional aircraft .......................................................................................... .................... .................... +76,300

F–18 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 212,614 200,214 ¥12,400

Tactical Aircraft Moving Map Capability (TAMMAC) ..................................... .................... .................... +5,000

ATFLIR ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... +9,600

ATARS Procurement (OPEVAL results) ........................................................... .................... .................... ¥27,000

H–46 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 16,556 21,556 +5,000

Engine Reliability improvement program risk reduction ............................... .................... .................... +5,000

AH–1W SERIES ........................................................................................................ 9,758 13,758 +4,000

AH–1 Night targeting system ........................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

H–53 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 19,919 22,519 +2,600

Marine Corps Reserve: CH–53 Night Vision B-kits ....................................... .................... .................... +2,600

SH–60 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 21,088 39,088 +18,000

AN/AQS–13F ................................................................................................... .................... .................... +8,000

Specific Emitter Identification (procurement/installation) ............................ .................... .................... +10,000

H–1 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 2,642 16,642 +14,000

AN/AQQ–22 Upgrade ...................................................................................... .................... .................... +8,000

H–1 Upgrade program ................................................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

EP–3 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 25,833 80,833 +55,000

Modification of P–3 to EP–3 configuration .................................................. .................... .................... +55,000

P–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 60,710 78,710 +18,000

Digital Recorder Reproducers (DRRs) ............................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

SLAM–ER Weapon Integration ....................................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

Digital Instantaneous Frequency Management Upgrade .............................. .................... .................... +6,000

Lightweight Environmentally Sealed Parachute Assembly ............................ .................... .................... +2,000

S–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 79,050 64,050 ¥15,000

Accelerated retirement of S–3 fleet in 2008 ................................................ .................... .................... ¥15,000

E–2 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 18,485 57,485 +39,000

Hawkeye 2000 Upgrade ................................................................................. .................... .................... +39,000

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................... 941,553 947,553 +6,000

Spares for P–3 to EP–3 modification ........................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

ADVANCED TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEM (ATARS)

The Committee recommends a $27,000,000 reduction in F/A–18

procurement funding, the amount included in the request for the

Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS).

ATARS did not have a successful Operational Evaluation

108

(OPEVAL) and was deemed ‘‘not operationally suitable’’ due to reliability and availability shortfalls.

This situation will cause the Navy and the Marine Corps to reevaluate the ATARS program approved by Congress in fiscal year

2000 and should also result in a revision to the program presented

in the fiscal year 2001 budget request. The Congress provided the

ATARS budget request in fiscal year 2000, but prohibited the expenditure of 50 percent of the funds until completion of the

OPEVAL. Despite the fact that the OPEVAL is complete, the Navy

has wisely put the program on hold because it was not completely

successful. This puts the Milestone III decision in jeopardy and

causes the Committee to believe that based on the program presented in the fiscal year 2001 request, the requested ATARS procurement funds are excess to the needs of the Navy.

The Committee recognizes that some may perceive this decision

as exacerbating the Marine Corps’ un-met requirement for tactical

reconnaissance. However, faced with the lack of a clear approach

to move forward to a Milestone III decision and an unknown cost

associated with potential ATARS modifications that would meet

the OPEVAL criteria, the Committee’s action is prudent.

The Committee directs the Navy to provide a recommendation on

what it will do to meet both the short-term and the long-term Marine Corps requirement for tactical reconnaissance.

EP–3 MODERNIZATION

The Committee has provided a total of $61,000,000 for the Navy

to modify one P–3 to an EP–3 configuration, which meets a Navy

priority requirement by moving the modification from the fiscal

year 2002 budget plan to a fiscal year 2001 appropriation. This

asset has been the workhorse of the Intelligence, Surveillance and

Reconnaissance (ISR) fleet and the Committee is pleased that the

Navy has identified an urgent need to increase its inventory of EP–

3s. The urgency of course is also due to the operational loss of four

aircraft for various sensor upgrades, a protracted process due in

part to poor management on the part of the Navy.

The Committee is concerned that the Navy is not adequately

planning or budgeting for a possible Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for the EP–3 to ensure the viability of the aircraft to

2025. Therefore, the Committee directs the Navy to submit a report

by January 15, 2001, which identifies the outyear requirements for

a SLEP of the EP–3, including any requirement to replace sensors.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

109

110

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,383,413,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 1,434,250,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,372,112,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥62,138,000

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of strategic and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes, guns, associated support equipment, and modification on in-service missiles,

torpedoes, and guns.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

DRONES AND DECOYS ............................................................................................. .................... 10,000 +10,000

Improved Tactical Air Launched Decoy (ITALD) ............................................. .................... .................... +10,000

FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON ...................................................................... 170,537 95,500 ¥75,037

Defer EELV launch services until leadtime away from need per GAO recommendation ............................................................................................. .................... .................... ¥75,000

MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS .............................................................................. 38,926 44,926 +6,000

Increased Procurement .................................................................................. .................... .................... +6,000

ASW RANGE SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 14,955 18,955 +4,000

Northwest Undersea Test Range Upgrade ..................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

CIWS MODS ............................................................................................................. 964 5,964 +5,000

Phalanx CIWS Block IB Upgrade kits ............................................................ .................... .................... +5,000

GUN MOUNT MODS .................................................................................................. 4,779 14,779 +10,000

MK–45 Gun System Mod 4 Upgrade kits ...................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

JOINT STAND-OFF WEAPON

The Navy requested $171,624,000 for procurement of the Joint

Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW). The Committee recommends

$149,523,000, a decrease of $22,101,000.

Of the 636 JSOWs requested, the Navy plans to procure 150 of

the ‘‘JSOW–B’’ anti-armor variant. The JSOW–B uses the BLU–

108 submunition, the same submunition used in the Air Force Sensor Fuzed Weapon in production for several years. For a number

of reasons, the Committee believes that it is premature to significantly ramp up production of the anti-armor variant. First, the

Committee continues to be concerned that DoD is acquiring too

many anti-armor weapons and has failed to respond adequately to

Committee reporting requirements in this regard. The GAO has observed that DoD is acquiring an anti-armor inventory that exceeds

levels achieved during the Cold War despite a vastly diminished

threat. Until DoD comes to grips with this mismatch between program and threat, the Committee must make its own judgements in

terms of reducing the Department’s anti-armor programs. Second,

the JSOW–B continues to suffer from targeting limitations that

prevent efficient use of the weapon system until technologies such

as sensor-to-shooter, advanced electronically scanned arrays, and

an improved Harm Targeting System are available. In the meantime, the Navy and Air Force plan to use exceedingly inefficient

targeting ‘‘work-arounds’’ such as launching weapons blindly into

choke points hoping that moving armor happens to be transiting at

111

the exact time of weapon impact. Third, the Committee notes that

the Navy now recognizes the limited application of this weapon as

reflected by a 50 percent reduction in the requirement for the

JSOW–B variant in its latest Non-Nuclear Ordnance Requirement

(NNOR) analysis completed after submission of the budget.

Fourth, as mentioned, the Air Force already has in its inventory

the Sensor Fuzed Weapon that uses the same submunition as the

JSOW. Sensor Fuzed Weapon is not a stand-off munition and

therefore avoids some of the targeting issues associated with

JSOW. Though available, this weapon was prohibited from use in

Kosovo over fears of collateral damage. Adding stand-off to this capability (i.e., JSOW) would only exacerbate the potential for collateral damage. In summary, the Committee believes it is premature

to procure this weapon in large numbers until the issues of targeting and requirements are resolved. Given these considerations,

the Committee recommends a reduction of 120 of the budgeted 150

anti-armor JSOW–B variants, a decrease of $42,240,000. The Committee further recommends an increase of 120 baseline JSOW–A

variants for an additional $20,139,000. The Committee notes that

the JSOW–A variant performed well in recent operations in Iraq

and Kosovo. The Committee has made similar adjustments to the

Air Force JSOW program.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

112

113

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE

CORPS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $525,200,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 429,649,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 491,749,000

Change from Budget Request ............................................................ +62,100,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, ammunition modernization, and ammunition related material for the

Navy and Marine Corps.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS .................................................................................... 63,157 73,157 +10,000

Laser Guided Bombs ...................................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

PRACTICE BOMBS ................................................................................................... 50,600 60,600 +10,000

Laser Guided Training Rounds ...................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ................................................................... 39,293 45,793 +6,500

MJU–52/B IR expendable countermeasures .................................................. .................... .................... +6,500

5.56 MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................... 23,456 26,456 +3,000

Increased quantity ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

7.62 MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................... 2,039 3,039 +1,000

Increased quantity ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +1,000

LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES ................................................................................. 40,945 44,945 +4,000

Anti-personnel obstacle breaching system ................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

.50 CALIBER ............................................................................................................ 7,637 8,637 +1,000

Increased quantity ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +1,000

GRENADES, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 8,358 12,358 +4,000

M67 fragmentation hand grenade ................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 1,592 6,192 +4,600

SMAW Common round .................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,600

ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 322 18,322 +18,000

M795 HE ammunition .................................................................................... .................... .................... +18,000

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

114

115

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $7,053,454,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 12,296,919,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 12,266,919,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥30,000,000

This appropriation provides funds for the construction of new

ships and the purchase and conversion of existing ships, including

hull, mechanical, and electrical equipment, electronics, guns, torpedo and missile launching systems, and communication systems.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

NEW SSN ................................................................................................................. 1,203,012 1,198,012 ¥5,000

Other Cost Growth ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥5,000

CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS .................................................................................. 703,441 698,441 ¥5,000

C4ISR Upgrade, Engineering Services cost growth ....................................... .................... .................... ¥5,000

DDG–51 (MYP) ........................................................................................................ 2,713,559 2,703,559 ¥10,000

Basic Construction cost growth .................................................................... .................... .................... ¥10,000

LPD–17 .................................................................................................................... 1,489,286 1,479,286 ¥10,000

Escalation ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥10,000

ADC(X) ..................................................................................................................... 338,951 348,951 +10,000

Second shipyard support engineering ........................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

OUTFITTING .............................................................................................................. 301,077 291,077 ¥10,000

LPD schedule delays ...................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥10,000

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

116

117

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $4,320,238,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 3,334,611,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 3,433,063,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +98,452,000

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of major

equipment and weapons other than ships, aircraft, missiles, and

torpedoes. Such equipment ranges from the latest electronic sensors for updating naval forces to trucks, training equipment, and

spare parts.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 33,425 45,425 +12,000

WSN–7B Ring Laser Gyro .............................................................................. .................... .................... +12,000

STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................. 6,206 21,206 +15,000

AN/UYQ–70 Submarine Workstations ............................................................ .................... .................... +15,000

LCAC ........................................................................................................................ 3,559 .................... ¥3,559

LCAC SLEP (unobligated balances) ............................................................... .................... .................... ¥3,559

ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ................................................................................ 58,851 60,851 +2,000

Unattended Paint Removal and Application system ..................................... .................... .................... +2,000

RADAR SUPPORT ..................................................................................................... .................... 25,000 +25,000

AN/SYS–2 Integrated Tracking System .......................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

SPS–73 (V) Radar .......................................................................................... .................... .................... +14,000

BPS–15H radar enhanced bridge repeaters .................................................. .................... .................... +1,000

SSN ACOUSTICS ...................................................................................................... 106,647 114,647 +8,000

TB–23 Array refurbishment ........................................................................... .................... .................... +8,000

UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................... 847 2,847 +2,000

Carrier Tactical Surveillance Center (CV–TSC) ............................................. .................... .................... +2,000

SONAR SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. .................... 5,000 +5,000

New sonar dome windows (Note: Funding is only for completion of fabrication of production tooling and first article production dome with

the new material system.) ........................................................................ .................... .................... +5,000

SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT .......................................................................................... 61,524 50,024 ¥11,500

Contract Savings/Unobligated balances ....................................................... .................... .................... ¥11,500

NAVY TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM ................................................................................ .................... 10,000 +10,000

Land based display emulators ...................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY ................................................................ 15,853 33,853 +18,000

System life extension, test sites ................................................................... .................... .................... +18,000

SHALLOW WATER MCM ............................................................................................ 16,863 16,363 ¥500

Contract Savings ........................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥500

OTHER TRAINING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 21,390 28,390 +7,000

Air Traffic Control On-board trainer .............................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

BFTT electronic warfare trainers ................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

SURFACE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS ....................................................................... .................... 4,000 +4,000

Shipboard Advanced Radar Target ID system (SARTIS) ............................... .................... .................... +4,000

TADIX–B .................................................................................................................. 32 6,032 +6,000

Additional JTT–N terminals ............................................................................ .................... .................... +6.000

EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION ........................................................................... 5,378 8,378 +3,000

Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare System (MIUW) Upgrades ....................... .................... .................... +3,000

ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ................................................................................ 4,889 11,889 +7,000

Network based shipboard interior secure voice communications (Note:

funding is only for procurement of AN/UYQ–70 secure voice technology

equipment for land based evaluations.) .................................................. .................... .................... +7,000

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................. 252,695 206,606 ¥46,089

Defer procurement of EHF follow-on terminals pending successful end-toend testing per GAO recommendation ...................................................... .................... .................... ¥46,089

JEDMICS .................................................................................................................. .................... 12,000 +12,000

118

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

JEDMICS Encryption (Note: only for the continued procurement and integration of the same security solution implemented in 1999 and 2000.) .................... .................... +12,000

INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ........................................................... 46,563 66,563 +20,000

Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection Device ........................ .................... .................... +8,000

Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment .................................... .................... .................... +12,000

WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................. 15,125 26,225 +11,100

Mobile Remote Emitter Simulator (MRESS) ................................................... .................... .................... +15,000

Underwater Acoustic Telemetry Modem ......................................................... .................... .................... ¥2,700

GOMEX Mine Warfare Range ......................................................................... .................... .................... ¥1,200

AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT .......................................................................................... 20,374 16,674 ¥3,700

CSEL—contract award slip ........................................................................... .................... .................... ¥3,200

PRC–112 upgrades—contract cancellation .................................................. .................... .................... ¥500

NATO SEASPARROW ................................................................................................. 21,716 22,716 +1,000

Enhancement for Automatic Audio Video Tracking and non-Cooperative

Target Recognition .................................................................................... .................... .................... +1,000

RAM GMLS ............................................................................................................... 37,309 36,809 ¥500

Contract savings ............................................................................................ .................... .................... ¥500

AEGIS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 36,848 36,848 ....................

Total ship monitoring program ...................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

Smartship fielding (unobligated balances) ................................................... .................... .................... ¥5,000

SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 20,896 19,596 ¥1,300

AN/BSG–1—operational test slip .................................................................. .................... .................... ¥1,300

CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP ................................................................ 6,238 8,238 +2,000

Laser leveling equipment .............................................................................. .................... .................... +2,000

EDUCATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 2,076 5,076 +3,000

Navy recruiting kiosks ................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 22,247 14,747 ¥7,500

Primary ocean prediction system—software delays ..................................... .................... .................... ¥7,500

AVIATION REQUIREMENT FOR JOINT TACTICAL TERMINALS

The Committee directs the Navy to review, and report by March

15, 2001, its requirement for aviation joint tactical terminals.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

119

120

121

122

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,300,920,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 1,171,935,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,229,605,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +57,670,000

This appropriation funds the procurement, delivery, and modification of missiles, armament, communication equipment, tracked

and wheeled vehicles, and various support equipment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

RAPID ACQUISITION PROGRAM ................................................................................ 4,930 0 ¥4,930

Cancel program ............................................................................................. .................... .................... ¥4,930

INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 11,960 17,960 +6,000

MEWSS procurement ...................................................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

RADIO SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................... 3,097 9,097 +6,000

Tactical handheld radio ................................................................................. .................... .................... +6,000

COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ........................................................... 80,564 82,564 +2,000

Common end user computer package (Marine Corps Reserve) ................... .................... .................... +2,000

FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ........................................................................................... 12,343 17,343 +5,000

SHORTSTOP .................................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

5/4T TRUCK HMMWV (MYP) .................................................................................... 124,448 149,448 +25,000

HMMWV (Note: Of the additional amount, $1,500,000 is only to procure

HMMWV’s for recruiting purposes) ............................................................ .................... .................... +25,000

POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ............................................................................... 9,325 10,825 +1,500

Laser leveling equipment .............................................................................. .................... .................... +1,500

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 2,000 +2,000

Ultimate building machines .......................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP .................................................................................... 36,311 48,411 +12,000

D–7G bulldozer and scraper program (remanufacture) ................................ .................... .................... +12,100

TRAINING DEVICES .................................................................................................. 0 3,000 +3,000

Improved moving target simulator ................................................................ .................... .................... +3,000

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

123

124

125

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $8,228,630,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 9,539,602,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 10,064,032,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +524,430,000

This appropriation provides for the procurement of aircraft, and

for modification of in-service aircraft to improve safety and enhance

operational effectiveness. It also provides for initial spares and

other support equipment to include aerospace ground equipment

and industrial facilities. In addition, funds are provided for the procurement of flight training simulators to increase combat readiness

and to provide for more economical training.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request

Committee

recommenda- tion

Change from

request

C–17 (MYP) ............................................................................................................. 2,211,923 2,185,823 ¥26,100

AF requested transfer to C–17 AP ................................................................ .................... .................... ¥41,000

Simulator ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... +14,900

C–130J .................................................................................................................... 208,051 208,051 0

Note: Funds provided are only for procurement of two C–130J aircraft for

firefighting units in the ANG and for C–130J associated support requirements ................................................................................................. .................... .................... 0

E–8C ....................................................................................................................... 260,610 250,610 ¥10,000

Prior year pricing experience ......................................................................... .................... .................... ¥10,000

E–8C (AP–CY) ......................................................................................................... 0 40,000 +40,000

Advance Procurement for A/C 16 .................................................................. .................... .................... +40,000

PREDATOR UAV ....................................................................................................... 22,078 32,078 +10,000

Upgrade the current ground stations, integrate the capability to control

multiple UAVs simultaneously, improve reliability and maintainability,

and procure necessary air vehicles .......................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

B–2A ....................................................................................................................... 21,723 24,723 +3,000

EGBU–28 ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... +3,000

B–52 ....................................................................................................................... 8,425 20,425 +12,000

Electronic countermeasures and situational awareness ............................... .................... .................... +12,000

A–10 ........................................................................................................................ 33,891 37,891 +4,000

Integrated flight and fire control computer .................................................. .................... .................... +4,000

T–3 (EFS) AIRCRAFT ............................................................................................... 1,949 0 ¥1,949

Funds no longer required .............................................................................. .................... .................... ¥1,949

C–130 ..................................................................................................................... 91,524 94,524 +3,000

Aluminum Mesh tank Liner System ............................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

C–135 ..................................................................................................................... 328,232 380,232 +52,000

KC–135R reengine ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +52,000

DARP ....................................................................................................................... 165,540 180,276 +14,736

RIVET JOINT transfer ...................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,077

U–2 transfer .................................................................................................. .................... .................... ¥18,341

RC–135 RIVET JOINT aircrew (AMPd) trainer ................................................ .................... .................... +22,000

Installation of TAWS on RIVET JOINT ............................................................. .................... .................... +6,000

OTHER AIRCRAFT ..................................................................................................... 28,214 38,214 +10,000

SADL for ANG A–10, C–130, KC–135 ........................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

F–16 POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT ........................................................................ 25,464 37,464 +12,000

IAIS ................................................................................................................. .................... .................... +12,000

WAR CONSUMABLES ................................................................................................ 43,015 53,015 +10,000

ALE–50 Towed Decoys ................................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

DARP ....................................................................................................................... 98,410 136,674 +38,264

Procurement of a two-seat U–2 trainer ........................................................ .................... .................... +14,000

U–2 SYERS spares ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

1st Production LBSS/HBSS JSAF unit for U–2 .............................................. .................... .................... +8,000

126

Budget request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

request

RIVET JOINT transfer ...................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥5,077

U–2 transfer .................................................................................................. .................... .................... +18,341

F–15

The Air Force requested no funds for additional F–15 aircraft. The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for 5 additional F–15E

aircraft. The Committee understands that there are a number of

potential F–15 foreign military sales cases pending. The Committee

strongly encourages the Air Force to take all necessary action to

expeditiously negotiate these potential agreements.

C–17 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT

The Air Force requested $266,800,000 for advance procurement

for 15 aircraft to be procured in fiscal year 2002. The Committee

recommends $207,800,000, a net decrease of $59,000,000. Subsequent to submission of the budget, the Air Force identified a budgeting error and requested the Committee increase C–17 advance

procurement by $41,000,000 offset by a like decrease to the C–17

full funding line-item, a ‘‘net zero’’ transfer. The Committee recommendation includes this transfer.

In addition, the Committee recommendation includes a reduction

of $100,000,000 based on revised Air Force advance procurement

estimates. The C–17 program is in the midst of a seven year

multiyear contract. Although the contract requires 15 aircraft be

bought in fiscal year 2001, the Air Force budgeted for only 12

based on the assumption that the British would acquire 3 aircraft.

As the budget was submitted to Congress, the British had not decided to acquire these aircraft, forcing the Air Force and contractor

to evaluate options to minimize the impact of lower quantities of

aircraft on the multiyear contract. The Air Force and contractor

found that by accelerating contract award dates and manipulating

payment schedules, the multiyear contract could be maintained at

the budgeted quantities. However, these actions also have the effect of reducing the requirement for advance procurement. The

Committee recommendation adjusts the amount of advance procurement based on a detailed advance procurement analysis provided by the Air Force.

F–15 MODIFICATIONS

The Air Force requested $258,247,000 for F–15 modifications. The Committee recommends $305,647,000, an increase of

$47,400,000. Of this amount, $26,400,000 is only for integration of

BOL IR countermeasures on Air National Guard aircraft and

$21,000,000 is only for additional fighter datalink modifications.

The F–15 fighter datalink is an example of an information age

modification that provides tremendous capability at an inexpensive

price. This $230,000 per aircraft modification to the F–15C recently

completed independent operational testing and was found to make

the F–15C four times better in air-to-air combat (in terms of kill

ratios) while providing a 30 percent increase in survivability—all

this without the aid of stealth or supercruise. Despite this, the Air

127

Force continues to fail to fund this inexpensive upgrade for 75 combat coded F–15s. Consequently, the Committee finds it must once

again provide additional funds to ensure all combat coded F–15s

benefit from this highly leveraging modification.

F–16 MODIFICATIONS

The Committee observes that the Senate defense appropriations

report on H.R. 2521 (S. Rept. 102–154) stated, ‘‘the Committee directs that F–16 aircraft scheduled to be delivered to the Air Force

during fiscal year 1992 be turned over to those Air National Guard

F–16 units which served in Operational Desert Storm.’’ The Committee further observes that the statement of managers accompanying the appropriations conference report on H.R. 2521 (H.

Rept. 102–328) stated, ‘‘The Committee of Conference directs the

Air Force to initiate, immediately in the first quarter of fiscal year

1992, the modernization process for those Air National Guard F–

16 units that deployed to Operation Desert Storm, in priority over

any non-deploying unit, leading to equipping these deploying units

with updated F–16 aircraft. Units with the Close Air Support

(CAS) mission will be equipped with Block 30 aircraft.’’ The Committee notes that the Air Force complied with the conference direction by providing Block 30 aircraft to the 174th Fighter Wing. Subsequently, however, the Air Force reversed this action by replacing

the Block 30 aircraft with less capable Block 25 aircraft.

The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide

F–16 Block 40 aircraft, or later model F–16 aircraft, to Air National Guard units deployed to Operation Desert Storm no later

than first quarter fiscal 2002. Section 8110 of the Committee bill

prohibits obligation of funds for F–16 modifications pending submission of a report by the Secretary of the Air Force detailing the

plan to assign these aircraft as discussed above.

MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTION CHARGES

The Air Force requested $398,474,000 for Miscellaneous Produc- tion Charges. The Committee recommends $363,553,000, a reduction of $34,921,000. Two years ago, the Navy initiated a next generation infrared targeting pod program called ATFLIR and, according to the Air Force, invited the Air Force to participate as a joint

partner. The Air Force declined at that time. Now, the Air Force

plans to procure its own next generation targeting pod, a potential

billion dollar program. Though the Air Force’s requirements for a

next generation pod are similar to the Navy’s, the planned acquisition strategy could lead the service to procure a completely different pod. The Committee is disappointed that the Navy and Air

Force cannot work more closely together to develop joint solutions

to meet similar requirements. Joint programs reduce costs through

higher production rates, greater commonality in software development, stand-up of single vs. multiple depots, and more efficient

spares procurements and management as well as numerous other

efficiencies. To ensure joint commonality in DoD’s next generation

targeting pods, the Committee directs the Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology, and the Commander in Chief of the Joint Forces Command to review the Department’s plans to acquire next generation

128

targeting pods (including pods that would be procured by Guard

and Reserve components) to ensure the requirements and acquisition approach appropriately promote joint commonality. The Committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and the Commander in Chief of the Joint Forces Command to report its findings

and the steps taken to promote joint commonality to the congressional defense committees no later than February 15, 2001. The

Committee fully supports Air Force acquisition of a next generation

targeting pod, but will not stand by and accept another lost opportunity for joint commonality. Accordingly, the Committee recommends no funds for an Air Force Advanced Targeting Pod until

these issues are resolved and the report directed above is submitted.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

129

130

131

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $2,211,407,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 3,061,715,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,893,529,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥168,186,000

This appropriation provides for procurement, installation, and

checkout of strategic ballistic and other missiles, modification of inservice missiles, and initial spares of missile systems. It also provides for operational space systems, boosters, payloads, drones, associated ground equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial facilities, machine tool modernization, and special program

support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

request

MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ–BALLISTIC ................................................................... 42,308 11,508 ¥30,800

Defer Peacekeeper items ............................................................................... .................... .................... ¥30,800

JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON ....................................................................................... 90,828 76,012 ¥14,816

Decrease anti-armor variant quantity to 20 (¥80) .................................... .................... .................... ¥28,160

Increase baseline variant quantity to 154 (+80) ......................................... .................... .................... +13,344

MISSILE SPARES—REPAIR PARTS .......................................................................... 44,026 42,354 ¥1,672

Defer Peacekeeper spares .............................................................................. .................... .................... ¥1,672

GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) ................................................................................ 196,937 162,596 ¥34,341

Amended budget submission ........................................................................ .................... .................... ¥34,341

Program reduction ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥10,000

GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) (AP–CY) ................................................................. 13,404 17,404 +4,000

Amended budget submission ........................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH (SPACE) ....................................................... 287,996 275,996 ¥12,000

Program reduction ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥12,000

MEDIUM LAUNCH VEHICLE (SPACE) ........................................................................ 55,939 43,081 ¥12,858

Savings from delayed GPS launches (GAO) .................................................. .................... .................... ¥12,858

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

132

133

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $442,537,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 638,808,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 638,808,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related items for

the Air Force.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

134

135

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $7,146,157,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 7,699,127,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 7,778,997,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +79,870,000

This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapon systems and equipment other than aircraft and missiles. Included are

vehicles, electronic and telecommunications systems for command

and control of operation forces, and ground support equipment for

weapon systems and supporting structure.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request

Committee

recommenda- tion

Change from request

ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .......................................................................... 8,616 18,616 +10,000

T–7 bulldozers, excavators, and 2.5 ton front end loaders for ANG

RED HORSE units ................................................................................ .................... .................... +10,000

INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIP ............................................................................. 5,530 36,730 +31,200

Senior Scout ............................................................................................. .................... .................... +8,200

Eagle Vision IV ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection Device .................. .................... .................... +8,000

Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment .............................. .................... .................... +10,000

AIR TRAFFIC CTRL/LAND SYS (ATCALS) ............................................................ 0 6,000 +6,000

Air National Guard fixed air traffic control radar ................................... .................... .................... +6,000

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM ............................................................................ 58,663 52,663 ¥6,000

DASR test problems ................................................................................. .................... .................... ¥6,000

THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENT ..................................................... 15,431 14,997 ¥434

Reduced requirements for ruggedized computers ................................... .................... .................... ¥434

WEATHER OBSERV/FORECAST ........................................................................... 33,515 28,115 ¥5,400

Small Tactical Terminals schedule slip .................................................. .................... .................... ¥5,400

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING EQUIP .............................................................. 74,771 84,771 +10,000

Spares Information System ...................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

COMBAT TRAINING RANGES .............................................................................. 26,003 31,003 +5,000

Force Operational Readiness and Combat Effectiveness Simulation

(FORCES) for ANG ................................................................................ .................... .................... +5,000

NAVSTAR GPS SPACE ........................................................................................ 9,112 2,212 ¥6,900

Savings from combining 2 contracts into 1 ........................................... .................... .................... ¥3,800

Air Force rephase of alternate station funding ...................................... .................... .................... ¥3,100

MILSATCOM SPACE ............................................................................................ 53,027 35,127 ¥17,900

SMART T—program delays ...................................................................... .................... .................... ¥9,000

GBS Receivers—program delays in broadcast system .......................... .................... .................... ¥4,000

Premature procurement of CCS-Consolidated equipment. Program just

starting development .......................................................................... .................... .................... ¥4,900

TACTICAL C–E EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 101,222 98,722 ¥2,500

Reduced laser range finders based on additional units bought in

2000 .................................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥2,500

ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .......................................................................... 6,744 10,744 +4,000

Lightweight Environmentally Sealed Parachute Assembly (LESPA) for

C–130, C–141, C–5, and KC–135 ..................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ........................................................ 15,118 25,118 +10,000

Supply Asset Tracking System ................................................................. .................... .................... +10,000

FLOODLIGHTS ..................................................................................................... 10,718 14,718 +4,000

MEANPALS ................................................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 15,171 22,171 +7,000

Hazardous Gas Detection ......................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Ultimate building machines for Air Force and Air National Guard civil

engineering units ................................................................................ .................... .................... +1,000

Master Crane ........................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

136

Budget request

Committee

recommendation

Change from request

DARP RC–135 ................................................................................................... 12,785 27,985 +15,200

COMBAT SENT-Install RWR+Calibration Van .......................................... .................... .................... +4,700

RIVET JOINT-Mission Trainer (EFETS) ...................................................... .................... .................... +10,500

NEXT GENERATION SMALL LOADER

The Air Force requested $24,144,000 for procurement of next

generation small loaders. The Committee recommends $11,544,000,

a reduction of $12,600,000. Both competitors for the Next Generation Small Loader are foreign companies that have entered into licensing agreements with U.S. companies to produce the loaders.

Low rate production begins with 13 units in fiscal year 2000 followed by 34 units in fiscal year 2001. Should the selected U.S. company encounter difficulty in the production transition between foreign contractor and a new production line, production delays and

potential technical problems with the loaders could result. The

Committee believes it is appropriate to allow adequate time to validate a new production line and adequately test the loaders before

significantly ramping up production in fiscal year 2001. Accordingly, the Committee recommends deferring 21 loaders to fiscal

year 2002 resulting in a decrease of $12,600,000 to the budget request.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

137

138

139

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $2,249,566,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 2,275,308,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,303,136,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +27,828,000

This appropriation funds the Procurement, Defense-Wide activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request Recommended Change from request

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ..................................................................................... 64,872 116,672 +51,800

High Performance Computing Modernization [Note: Within this amount,

$1,000,000 is only for the Army High Performance Computing Research Center.] ...................................................................................... .................... .................... +48,000

Mentor Prote ́ge

 ́ ........................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Information Assurance: JCOATS–IO ........................................................... .................... .................... +800

DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM ............................................................................... 19,399 32,399 +13,000

DEFENSE SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ........................................................................... 82,863 87,863 +5,000

Electronic Commerce Resource Centers .................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

AUTOMATIC DOCUMENT CONVERSION SYSTEM ................................................... 0 20,000 +20,000

ADVANCED SEAL DELIVERY SYSTEM ................................................................... 25,500 28,800 +3,300

Design Enhancements ............................................................................... .................... .................... +3,300

SOF ORDNANCE ACQUISITION ............................................................................. 25,978 31,978 +6,000

Sniper Detection System ............................................................................ .................... .................... +6,000

SOF INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 32,309 35,309 +3,000

Portable Intelligence Collection and Relay Capability .............................. .................... .................... +3,000

SOF SMALL ARMS & WEAPONS ........................................................................... 11,829 33,449 +21,620

Body Armor Load Carriage System ............................................................ .................... .................... +5,000

Modular Integrated Communications Helmet ............................................ .................... .................... +4,620

Special Operations Peculiar Modification to the M–4 Carbine ................ .................... .................... +12,000

MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 14,376 18,876 +4,500

Low Profile Night Vision Goggles .............................................................. .................... .................... +4,500

INDIVIDUAL PROTECTION ..................................................................................... 108,725 111,725 +3,000

MEU E–NBC Capability Sets ...................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

DECONTAMINATION .............................................................................................. 12,195 13,195 +1,000

M291 Decontamination Kit ........................................................................ .................... .................... +1,000

COLLECTIVE PROTECTION .................................................................................... 36,179 37,179 +1,000

M49 Filter ................................................................................................... .................... .................... +1,000

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

140

141

142

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $150,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... ............................

Committee recommendation .............................................................. ............................

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of tactical

aircraft and other equipment for the National Guard and Reserve.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

In all accounts throughout the bill, the Committee recommends

a total of $2,452,551,000 for procurement of National Guard and

Reserve equipment, a net increase of $622,651,000 above the budget request. Consistent with the budget request and the Housepassed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001

(H.R. 4205), the Committee recommends no funding in the Procurement, National Guard and Reserve Equipment account.

DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $3,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... ............................

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 3,000,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +3,000,000

The Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. App. 2061, et seq.) authorizes the use of Federal funds to correct industrial resource

shortfalls and promote critical technology items which are essential

to the national defense.

MICROWAVE POWER TUBES

The Committee recommends an increase of $3,000,000 only for

microwave power tubes. Microwave power tubes generate and amplify microwave energy for applications in radar, electronic warfare, and telecommunications systems. These devices are currently

used in over 150 deployed weapon systems. Microwave power tubes

will be used in these and similar applications for at least the next

two to three decades since there are no foreseeable replacement

technologies. Therefore it is recommended that the Department

continue efforts to maintain and improve the supplier base for

microwave power tubes.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The Department requested $19,994,906,000 for Information

Technology. The Committee recommends $20,245,256,000, an increase of $250,350,000 as explained below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Operation and Maintenance, Army:

Information Assurance: IT Training and Education ................... 3,000

JMEANS—NDU ............................................................................. 3,000

Distance Learning—CCCE ............................................................ 1,500

Armor Officers Distance Learning ................................................ 1,500

Supercomputing Work .................................................................... 6,000

Defense Joint Accounting System ................................................. ¥14,000

Operation and Maintenance, Navy:

Information Assurance: IT Training and Education ................... 3,000

JMEANS—NWC ............................................................................. 2,000

143

Information Technology Center ..................................................... 7,000

Configuration Management Information System ........................ 15,000

Trident Sonar Manual Conversion ................................................ 3,000

Defense Joint Accounting System ................................................. ¥7,000

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps:

Information Assurance: IT Training and Education ................... 3,000

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:

Information Assurance: IT Training and Education ................... 3,000

IT Workforce Training—Aeronautical Systems Center ............... 2,000

JMEANS—AWC ............................................................................. 2,000

Defense Joint Accounting System ................................................. ¥7,000

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:

Information Assurance: IT Training and Education ................... 3,000

Automated Document Conversion ................................................. 20,000

Information Assurance: JCOATS–IO ............................................ 1,600

Information Assurance: Critical Infrastructure Protection ......... 10,300

Defense Joint Accounting System ................................................. ¥13,500

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard:

NG Fiber Optics Study ................................................................... 5,000

Other Procurement, Army:

Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection Device .... 8,000

Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment ................. 13,000

Pentagon IM&T program slip ........................................................ ¥48,150

Ammunition AIT ............................................................................. 5,000

NG Distance Learning Courseware .............................................. 4,000

Reserve Component Automation System ...................................... 8,000

JEDMICS Encryption .................................................................... 12,000

Other Procurement, Navy:

Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection Device .... 8,000

Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment ................. 12,000

Procurement, Marine Corps:

Common End User Computer Package ........................................ 2,000

Other Procurement, Air Force:

Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection Device .... 8,000

Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment ................. 10,000

Spares Information System ........................................................... 10,000

Supply Asset Tracking System ...................................................... 10,000

Procurement, Defense-Wide:

Information Assurance: JCOATS–IO ............................................ 800

Automated Document Conversion ................................................. 20,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:

STRICOM-Online Contract Document Mgmt. ............................. 2,000

Information Assurance: PKI .......................................................... 4,500

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy:

Advanced Distributed Learning .................................................... 10,000

ITC—Human Resource Enterprise Strategy ................................ 8,000

Information Assurance: PKI .......................................................... 8,600

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force:

Information Assurance: PKI .......................................................... 5,500

Information Assurance: Coordinated Distributed Attack Detection ............................................................................................... 10,000

Information Assurance: Adaptive information protection ........... 2,000

IMDS ............................................................................................... 5,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide:

Information Assurance: Basic Research (6.1) ............................... 3,000

Joint Service Education and Training .......................................... 3,500

DLA Web Based Tracking .............................................................. 1,500

Information Assurance: JCOATS–IO ............................................ 9,700

ASD(C3I) Global Infrastructure Data Capture Init. ................... 21,000

Information Assurance: Project Condor ........................................ 20,000

Total +250,350

INFORMATION ASSURANCE AND COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY

As discussed earlier in this report, the Committee recommends

providing an additional $150,000,000 over the budget request to

144

address the most critical information assurance and computer security requirements identified by DoD. The Committee expects that

the Department will issue guidance to ensure that these funds are

used in a coordinated manner to support the Department’s overall

information assurance strategy.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT

Reports by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD

IG) and the General Accounting Office (GAO) confirm that the Department of Defense continues to have difficulty managing its information technology programs. The Committee believes that the

basic policies and procedures necessary for sound oversight and

program management are clearly outlined in the Clinger-Cohen Act

of 1996 and in supporting regulations. Last year, the Committee

explained in detail its concerns with the Department’s oversight

process and made clear that compliance with the Clinger-Cohen

Act would be a prerequisite for funding any information technology

initiative. It is in that light that the Committee raises the following

two issues.

DEFENSE JOINT ACCOUNTING SYSTEM (DJAS)

Last year, when DJAS was submitted for Milestone I approval,

the DoD IG and the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation

(PA&E) issued warnings about the program’s readiness for Milestone I approval and about dramatic changes in its scope, cost and

duration. In addition, both the Air Force and the Navy withdrew

from this ‘‘joint’’ program. Despite these obvious warnings, the Department’s Information Technology oversight body (the IT OIPT)

gave DJAS Milestone I and II approval, without having a meeting

to review the program.

The Congress explicitly rejected this approval as inconsistent

with the intent of the Clinger-Cohen Act and directed the Department to conduct a proper Milestone review to determine if this program should continue. The Committee understands that the program has continued to move forward without a proper Milestone

review and that the program is still not compliant with the

Clinger-Cohen Act. The Committee has therefore removed all funding for this program in fiscal year 2001 and directs that this program be terminated.

NAVY MARINE CORPS INTRANET

The Navy Marine Corps Intranet is a new initiative that involves

contracting out for the full range of the Department’s information

technology services (such as lifecycle replacement of computers and

infrastructure, software updates and help desk support). At the

cost of several billion dollars over the next five years, it would be

the Department’s single largest information technology initiative.

However, this proposal was not included in the Department’s fiscal

year 2001 budget.

The Committee has been supportive of efforts by the military

services that seek innovative solutions, and it is out of a desire to

encourage such innovation that the Committee is willing to consider this program outside the normal budget process.

145

As with all information technology initiatives, the Navy must

demonstrate that NMCI is compliant with the Clinger-Cohen Act

and that it has a sound business case for making this investment.

This information is currently unavailable. However, the Navy has

agreed to provide this and other relevant information, per a March

8, 2000 Memorandum of Agreement with the Office of the Assistant

Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and

Intelligence. The Committee is pleased that ASD(C3I) and the

Navy have agreed to this oversight procedure. The Committee will

therefore withhold judgment until that information is available and

ASD(C3I) has conducted a proper review. The Committee encourages the Navy and ASD(C3I) to work together to ensure that the

review process is both thorough and timely.

INFORMATION SECURITY LESSONS LEARNED

In its April 10th report to Congress the Department outlines the

‘‘lessons learned from the Year 2000 effort and their applicability

to information management and information security.’’ Among the

key lessons learned was the importance of functional end-to-end

testing, CINC operational evaluations, contingency plans, continuity of operation plans, a centralized system database, performance measures and timely audits. The report’s bottom line is ‘‘Senior leadership must remain engaged in information technology

management’’ if these lessons learned are to be effectively implemented.

The Committee requests that the Department of Defense provide

a report, no later that November 15, 2000, outlining its efforts in

implementing these lessons learned. In particular, this report

should address the following questions:

1) How will the Department ensure continued senior level management involvement? In particular, what will be the management

forum and who be the participants?

2) What performance measures are being used to track a system

or service’s preparedness for a cyber attack?

3) How are cyber attacks being integrated into CINC operational

evaluations?

4) What guidance has been issued to ensure that contingency

plans and continuity of operation plans are maintained and updated for a cyber attack?

5) What functional or end-to-end tests are planned to examine a

system’s vulnerability to a cyber attack?

6) How will information assurance audits be integrated into this

effort?

ARMY HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING RESEARCH CENTER

The Committee recognizes the unique value of the Army High

Performance Computing Research Center (AHPCRC). The Center’s

high performance computing systems are used heavily by DoD’s

science and technology community. AHPCRC researchers have

made significant contributions to computational science and defense technology. In addition, the Center’s outreach and educational programs have proven valuable to the Army.

To ensure that the Center is adequately funded, the Committee

has added $9,750,000 to funds already budgeted for a total of

146

$11,507,000 for the Center’s activities. Of these funds, $6,000,000

is only for the use, operation and maintenance of the Center’s high

performance computing systems and networks; $1,500,000 is only

for staff scientist services to support Army research activities;

$1,100,000 is only for technology exchange programs with Army

laboratories, outreach and education programs, and management

activities of the research program and center, including publications, seminars and workshops; and $2,907,000 is only for basic research at the Center’s academic partner institutions.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER

The Committee recommends $7,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy and $8,000,000 in Research, Development, Test and

Evaluation, Navy only for continuing the human resources enterprise strategy in accordance with past Committee direction. These

funds shall be provided to the Navy’s Program Executive Office for

Information Technology (PEO/IT) for its enterprise software development Information Technology Center (ITC).

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU FIBER OPTIC STUDY

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only to continue the feasibility study and engineering design of a Nationwide Dedicated

Fiber Optic Network (NDFON) for the National Guard. The Committee directs ASD(C3I) to ensure this network makes maximum

use of DISA networks and is consistent with the Department’s information architecture and policies.

GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE DATA CAPTURE PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $21,000,000 for the Global Infrastructure Data Capture Program (GIDC) under the ASD(C3I) for

the acquisition and digital conversion of critical engineering and infrastructure data, including related systems and technical information.

(147)

TITLE IV

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

The fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense research, development, test and evaluation budget request totals $37,862,401,000.

The accompanying bill recommends $40,170,230,000. The total

amount recommended is an increase of $2,307,829,000 above the

fiscal year 2001 budget estimate and is $2,564,670,000 above the

total provided in fiscal year 2000. The table below summarizes the

budget estimate and the Committee’s recommendations.

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Recapitulation

RDTE, Army ........................................................................................... 5,260,346 6,025,057 +764,711

RDTE, Navy ............................................................................................ 8,476,677 9,222,927 +746,250

RDTE, Air Force ..................................................................................... 13,685,576 13,760,689 +75,113

RDTE, Defense-Wide .............................................................................. 10,238,242 10,918,997 +680,755

Developmental Test and Evaluation ..................................................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Operational Test and Evaluation .......................................................... 201,560 242,560 +41,000

Grand total, RDTE ................................................................... 37,862,401 40,170,230 +2,307,829

SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS

Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in

the project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases ‘‘only

for’’ or ‘‘only to’’ in this report are congressional interest items for

the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each

of these items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated

amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. These items

remain special interest items whether or not they are repeated in

a subsequent conference report.

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

Adjustments of the classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.

ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS MASTER PLAN

In the statement of the managers accompanying the conference

report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999, the

DoD was directed to provide an Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan

with the fiscal year 2000 budget request. The plan, which was delivered five months late, did not address the concerns outlined in

the statement. Therefore, the fiscal year 2000 statement of the

148

managers directed the Secretary of Defense provide an in-depth

analysis of Anti-Armor weapons with the fiscal year 2001 budget

submission. Four months after the budget submission, the Committee has still not received the analysis. The DoD has not requested an extension or given an explanation for not delivering the

plan on time. As a result, the Committee has recommended reductions to several anti-armor weapon systems.

TACTICAL RADIOS

The Committee directs that no more than 25 percent of the funds

appropriated for research and development of any tactical radio

program may be obligated until the Assistant Secretary of Defense

for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence certifies

in writing to the congressional defense committees that the development program meet interoperability requirements, is not duplicative of other developmental efforts and is fully funded in the

budget.

NETWORKING OF INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, RECONNAISSANCE

ASSETS

The Committee has heard a number of theoretical discussions

about how to better exploit the unique capabilities of Intelligence,

Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and possibly national platforms, by ‘‘networking’’ these assets to provide a more complete intelligence picture for tactical commanders. While the Navy has provided some discussion of its Network Centric Warfare concept, the

Committee is concerned that none of the Services have a strategy

to achieve ‘‘networked’’ intelligence from the various ISR and national platforms. Furthermore, without a networked approach, it

remains unclear to the Committee if the intelligence currently

gathered with these platforms can be properly and timely exploited

and disseminated to the tactical commander, which calls into question the wisdom of simply buying more of the same ‘‘un-networked’’

assets. It is possible that funds could be better spent procuring

items that fulfill a requirement to tie together what is already in

the inventory in order to more effectively provide the tactical commanders with critical information.

Therefore, the Committee directs that each Service provide a report no later than September 30, 2001, on its strategy to network

ISR platforms. The Committee is most interested in whether each

Service has a goal for such networking, a strategy to implement

that goal, and a specific plan for procuring or developing what is

needed to execute the strategy. Considering the necessity of multiService warfare, it would be senseless to propose a networked ISR

system which would not provide the tactical commander with the

ability to access all necessary information. Therefore, coordination

of these reports is essential and required.

JOINT EJECTION SEAT PROGRAM

The Office of the Secretary of Defense has done a poor job of responding to the concerns in the Committee’s fiscal year 2000 report

(House Report 106–244) and the direction contained in the conference report accompanying the Department of Defense AppropriaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR644.004 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
149

tions Act, 2000. The Committee understands that the Department

agrees with the objectives of the joint ejection seat program initiated by this Committee last year, and agrees that the program is

essential to address serious safety concerns about military pilots

and their ability to successfully survive emergency ejections from

disabled aircraft. Yet, no funds were included in the fiscal year

2001 budget to continue this initiative, no response has been provided to the reporting requirements in last year’s conference report,

and the Department still chose to budget a stand-alone K–36 ejection seat program outside the framework of the joint program (even

though K–36 is one of the candidates being considered for the joint

program). The Committee further understands that a memorandum of agreement between the Navy and the Air Force concerning operation of the joint program has not been consummated,

and also, is concerned that the staffing and decision-making in the

program to date is not joint at all, but rather is being driven by

a single service. The Committee views the joint ejection seat initiative as vital to providing a safer and more cost-effective seat for the

Joint Strike Fighter, where about 3,000 new aircraft are envisioned, yet there is no evidence that the Department has connected

this program to the Joint Strike Fighter in a meaningful way.

The Committee directs that no contract award for the joint ejection seat program using funds provided in fiscal year 2000 be made

until the Secretary of Defense resolves all of the above issues and

submits a report to the congressional defense committees explaining how this was done and submits a program plan for the Joint

Ejection Seat Program as required by last year’s conference report.

None of the funds in fiscal years 2000 or 2001 may be obligated

until the Secretaries of the Navy and Air Force certify to the congressional defense committees that a joint program office and supporting mechanism is in place to manage the program in a manner

which fairly meets both services’ requirements. None of the funds

provided in this Act for the Joint Strike Fighter, or in technology

base program elements which support tactical aircraft, may be

used for development of an ejection seat other than those being developed in the Joint Ejection Seat Program. The Committee has included bill language under the heading ‘‘Research, Development,

Test and Evaluation, Air Force’’ to prohibit the use of any seat

other than one developed under the joint ejection seat program for

the Joint Strike Fighter. The Committee directs that these limitations be included on DD Form 1414 for fiscal year 2001.

The fiscal year 2001 budget requests a total of $12,689,000 for

the K–36 development program as a stand alone effort. The Committee specifically denies this request with prejudice, which shall

be noted on DD Form 1414 for fiscal year 2001. Instead, the Committee recommends a total of $24,289,000 in the Navy and in the

Air Force only for the Joint Ejection Seat Program which is the

proper venue for competitive consideration of the K–36 proposal.

The Committee reiterates that the objective of the Joint Ejection

Seat Program is to completely qualify at least two modern and safe

ejection seats for the Joint Strike Fighter and other future tactical

aircraft applications.

150

DISCOVERER II

The Air Force, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and

the National Reconnaissance Office collectively requested

$130,000,000 for the Discoverer II satellite technology demonstration program. The Committee recommends no funding, a decrease

of $130,000,000. The fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations Act

provided sufficient funding for the Discoverer II program to conclude the phase I studies and analysis portion of the program along

with related risk reduction efforts. With phase I now funded to

completion, the Committee recommends that the Discoverer II program be terminated.

The Committee makes this recommendation for the following

reasons: (1) Discoverer II has no documented requirement or concept of operations; (2) the cost of the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program, which the program office

estimates at $702 million and which will in all likelihood exceed $1

billion, is of a magnitude ordinarily associated with the development of fully operational satellites and therefore unaffordable given

the limited operational benefits of a technology demonstration program; (3) the Department has conducted no trade-off analysis between Discoverer II and other systems and processes that could deliver ground moving target indication data to warfighters; and, (4)

the Department has failed to analyze the impact a Discoverer II

constellation would have on an already overtaxed imagery processing, exploitation and dissemination system.

Even if successful, there is no guarantee the Air Force could ever

build, launch, operate and maintain a Discoverer II constellation

without a substantial top line increase to its budget. By some estimates the cost of a fully functional Discoverer II constellation could

reach $25 billion. In the face of other severe shortfalls in space and

aircraft modernization the Committee concludes that Discoverer II

is of low priority and recommends its termination.

The Committee discusses its recommendation more fully in the

classified annex to this report.

USE OF SPECIAL ACCESS-LIKE SECURITY MEASURES TO PROTECT

BUSINESS SENSITIVE INFORMATION

The Committee continues to be concerned that DoD is using security measures similar to those used for Special Access Programs

(SAPs) to protect information associated with non-SAPs. Although

DoD has made progress in this area with respect to non-SAP classified activities, the Committee notes that SAP-like security measures are being used to protect contractor proprietary and competition sensitive information. The Committee is especially concerned

because it appears that SAP-like security measures are applied inconsistently among programs with no clear DoD-wide policy or procedures for sharing information with Congress. In a number of instances, these security measures have needlessly complicated congressional oversight and review of program activities. The Committee notes that DoD’s Office of Inspector General has made similar observations with regard to the Air Force’s Evolved Expendable

Launch Vehicle (EELV) (Report number D–2000–070, dated December 30, 1999) and recommended that DoD form a working

151

group to develop guidance for security measures to protect business

sensitive information. The Committee directs the Undersecretary of

Defense for Acquisition and Technology to review DoD’s guidance

for using security measures to protect business sensitive information, develop additional guidance as necessary (including streamlined procedures for providing information to Congress), and submit a report detailing the action taken to the congressional defense

committees no later than November 1, 2000.

BUDGETING FOR OPERATIONAL TEST

The Committee is concerned that the Military Departments are

not adequately budgeting for operational testing. The Committee

understands that severely constrained operational test budgets are

forcing the Services’ operational test communities to focus reporting only on the highest profile programs with small and medium

sized programs proceeding into production without formal reporting

from the operational test community. The Committee believes that

this situation must be corrected and fully expects the Military Departments to budget adequately to ensure all programs benefit

from an appropriate level of independent operational testing.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $5,266,601,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 5,260,346,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 6,025,057,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +764,711,000

This appropriation finances the research, development, test and

evaluation activities for the Department of the Army.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS .................................................. 54,365 55,365 +1,000

Science-based regulatory compliance study (Note: The additional

$1,000,000 is only for a science based regulatory compliance study

which will conduct risk assessments and strategies to meet federal

regulatory compliance for chemical demilitarization activities. The

Committee is concerned with the impact of chemical demilitarization

sites on the environment, and specifically on agricultural crops. The

Committee directs that the funds be used to expand outreach to Federal, state and local governments, by providing risk analysis to these

entities. The Committee recommends that this project include partnerships with such agencies, such as the National Center for Toxicological Research.) .................................................................................. .................... .................... +1,000

Army High Performance Computing Research Center (Note: No less than

$610,000 is only for the Army High Performance Computing Research

Center. Additional information is provided in the IT section of this report) ........................................................................................................... .................... .................... [610]

MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 11,557 15,557 +4,000

Amorphous metal kinetic energy penetrator ................................................. .................... .................... +4,000

SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY ........................................................... 20,722 24,722 +4,000

Passive millimeter wave camera ................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

MISSILE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 47,183 69,183 +22,000

Acceleration of development and testing for tactical missile components .................... .................... +8,000

152

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Aero-optics evaluation center ........................................................................ .................... .................... +5,500

Low cost guidance and navigation unit ....................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

Enhanced SCRAMJET mixing .......................................................................... .................... .................... +2,500

ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................ 993 7,993 +7,000

Minature detection devices and analysis methods for lightweight low

power sensors and isotope identification techniques .............................. .................... .................... +3,000

Zeus laser ordnance neutralization ............................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

MODELING AND SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................ 30,479 32,479 +2,000

STRICOM—Online contract document management .................................... .................... .................... +2,000

COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 63,589 68,589 +5,000

Smart truck .................................................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

(Note: Only for the integration of the voice interactive device into the

smart truck’s voice activated central processing computer)

Advanced tactical transportation technology initiative (Note: Only for advanced vehicle technologies in collaboration with the National Automotive Command) ..................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................... 33,761 48,761 +15,000

Multi-role future combat system armaments system ................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Single crystal tungsten alloy penetrators ..................................................... .................... .................... +8,000

Low cost course correction technology for conventional ammunition and

rockets ....................................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES ................................................................ 23,869 40,969 +17,100

Logistics fuel reformer technology ................................................................ .................... .................... +3,000

‘‘AA’’ Zinc air battery for military applications (Note: Additional funds are

provided in PE 0708045A) ........................................................................ .................... .................... +1,900

Improved high rate alkaline cell ................................................................... .................... .................... +1,200

Rechargeable cylindrical cell systems .......................................................... .................... .................... +1,600

Low cost reusable alkaline manganese-zinc technology .............................. .................... .................... +500

Phase III of intelligent power control for sheltered systems and vehicles .. .................... .................... +6,900

Extrusion of polymer electrolytes and polymer multilaminate materials ..... .................... .................... +2,000

NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 20,465 25,465 +5,000

Combustion-driven eyesafe self powered laser ............................................. .................... .................... +5,000

COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 12,386 17,786 +5,400

Nonlinear acoustic mine detection ................................................................ .................... .................... +1,400

Acoustic mine detection ................................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 15,786 19,486 +3,700

Medical errors reduction research (MED TEAMS) .......................................... .................... .................... +3,700

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY ................................................................ 13,994 54,494 +40,500

Sustainable green manufacturing ................................................................. .................... .................... +7,000

Range Safe demonstration program (TACOM-ARDEC) .................................. .................... .................... +5,000

Army’s Heavy Metals Office initiative ........................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cell demonstration ......................... .................... .................... +5,000

(Note: To demonstrate domestically produced residential PEM fuel cells in

military facilities)

Demanufacturing of electronic equipment for reuse and recycling (DEER2) .................... .................... +12,500

Technologies to reduce non-hazardous waste (Note: Leverage DEER2 Program) ......................................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY .................................................................... 42,344 47,344 +5,000

Fuel cell development (Note: Only for the fuel cell test and evaluation operations at the Department of Defense Fuel Cell Test and Evaluation

Center in support of ongoing fuel cell development and life-cycle cost

reduction) .................................................................................................. .................... .................... +5,000

WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................... 24,659 28,159 +3,500

Combat feeding (Note: Only for core technologies that address Joint Vision 2010, thus improving responsiveness and ensuring sustainability

of DoD combat feeding technologies. Selected participants must have

experience in production of combat rations, a history of performance

supporting DoD objectives, and will produce rations that meet the requirements of regulatory agencies for shelf stable products in quantities sufficient for laboratory tests). ....................................................... .................... .................... +2,500

Affordable guided airdrop system ................................................................. .................... .................... +1,000

MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 75,729 98,729 +23,000

153

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Comprehensive breast cancer clinical care project [Note: The Committee

supports continuation of a public/private effort, in coordination with a

rural medical center and a not-for-profit medical foundation, to provide a program in breast care risk assessment, diagnosis, treatment,

and research for the Department of Defense. The program shall be a

coordinated effort among Walter Reed Army Medical Center, National

Naval Medical Center, an appropriate non-profit medical foundation,

and a rural primary health care center, with funding management accomplished by the Uniformed Services University of the Health

Sciences.] .................................................................................................. .................... .................... +7,000

Emergency hypothermia for advanced combat casualty and delayed resuscitation ................................................................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

IMED tools ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

Minimally invasive research [Note: Only to continue research into the development of minimally invasive surgical procedures for the brain, spinal cord, and spine under DAMD 17–99–1–9022.] ................................. .................... .................... +2,000

Real-time heart rate variability ..................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................... 15,469 17,469 +2,000

Metrology ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... +2,000

MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................... 16,512 254,192 +237,680

Advanced cancer detection ............................................................................ .................... .................... +3,500

Integrative Medicine Distance-learning Program [Note: Only to develop a

distance-learning partnership in integrative medicine between educational organizations and U.S. military personnel, including doctors,

nurses and other health professionals who, for various reasons, are

unable to attend a resident program of integrative medicine education.

This partnership shall include at least one party with background in

both distance-learning and training of doctors, nurses and other

health professionals in the fields of complementary and alternative

medicine.] .................................................................................................. .................... .................... +1,000

Artificial hip (Volumetrically Controlled Manufacturing) .............................. .................... .................... +4,000

Biosensor research [Note: The Committee recommends $4,000,000 only

for cooperative efforts with federal and non-federal organizations to

support the location, identification, assessment, integration and development of advanced technologies for the remote monitoring,

biosensoring and analysis of both normal and abnormal metabolic

conditions.] ................................................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

Blood safety [Note: The Committee recommends $7,500,000 only for improved blood products and safety in systems compatible with military

field use.] .................................................................................................. .................... .................... +7,500

Cancer Center of Excellence .......................................................................... .................... .................... +1,000

SEATreat cancer technology [Note: The Committee recommends

$3,000,000 only for a minimally invasive photodynamic therapy system

of incorporating real-time tumor visualization and precision dose monitoring for both skin and cervical cancer treatments.] ........................... .................... .................... +3,000

Center for Aging Eye ...................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Chronic fatigue .............................................................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

Cervical cancer vaccine research .................................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

Chronic disease ............................................................................................. .................... .................... +5,500

Diabetes project (Joslin) ................................................................................ .................... .................... +7,000

DREAMS .......................................................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

Echocardiogram ............................................................................................. .................... .................... +4,000

Epidermolysis Bullosa .................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Gallo Alcoholism Research ............................................................................ .................... .................... +7,000

Gallo Cancer Center ....................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

HIV research ................................................................................................... .................... .................... +15,000

Diabetes project (Pittsburgh) ........................................................................ .................... .................... +7,000

Laser vision correction ................................................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

Ligament healing ........................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

LSTAT .............................................................................................................. .................... .................... +4,000

Lung cancer detection (CT Scan) .................................................................. .................... .................... +7,500

Lung Cancer Research—M.D. Anderson Center ........................................... .................... .................... +6,000

Medical free electron laser ............................................................................ .................... .................... 3,500

Minimally invasive therapy ............................................................................ .................... .................... +15,000

154

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Molecular Genetics and Musculoskeletal Research Program [Note: The

Committee recommends $8,000,000 only to continue the Army Molecular Genetics and Musculoskeletal Research Program.] .......................... .................... .................... +8,000

MRI ................................................................................................................. .................... .................... +1,000

National Medical Testbed .............................................................................. .................... .................... +15,000

Neurofibromatosis research ........................................................................... .................... .................... +17,000

Neurotoxin exposure treatment ...................................................................... .................... .................... +15,000

Nutrition research .......................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,760

Ovarian cancer research ................................................................................ .................... .................... +10,000

Polynitroxylated hemoglobin [Note: $6,000,000 to continue the development of polynitroxylated hemoglobin as an oxygen-carrying red cell

substitute for combat casualty care.] ...................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

Pulse medical instruments ............................................................................ .................... .................... +420

Synchrotron-based scanning research [Note: The Committee recommends

$7,000,000 only to continue the Army synchrotron-based scanning research technology for treatment of large field tumors, including breast

and lung cancers.] .................................................................................... .................... .................... +7,000

Tissue repair .................................................................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

Secure telemedicine technology ..................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Wound healing ............................................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

Virtual retinal display technology .................................................................. .................... .................... +6,000

Molecular and cellular bioengineering research [Note: From within available funds, $600,000 is only for cellular and macromolecular structures research including integration of the geometry and topography of

biological complexes as revealed by electron microscopy, x-ray crystallography, magnetic resonance spectroscopy and computational analysis.] .......................................................................................................... .................... .................... [600]

WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................. 29,738 59,738 +30,000

Multi-role future combat system armaments system ................................... .................... .................... +10,000

Precision guided mortar munition ................................................................. .................... .................... +8,000

Viking indirect fire module ............................................................................ .................... .................... +7,000

SMAW–D—concept demonstration testing of confined space propulsion

system ....................................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................. 148,114 162,114 +14,000

Future Combat System (Note: Within the additional amount provided by

the Committee, the Army should conduct research on advanced engines, such as the turbo fuel cell engine) ............................................... .................... .................... +46,000

Future Scout and Cavalry System ................................................................. .................... .................... ¥69,000

National Automotive Center—university innovative research ...................... .................... .................... +3,000

Composite armored vehicle ........................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Mobile parts hospital ..................................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

Advanced tactical transportation technology initiative ................................ .................... .................... +3,000

Combat vehicle and automotive technology (Note: Only for a technology

transfer center to scale up and transfer weight reduction technologies

to combat vehicles) ................................................................................... .................... .................... +8,000

IMPACT (Note: Only to continue Project IMPACT research into vehicle and

truck weight reduction, corrosion control, vehicle design and manufacturing architectures using lightweight steel) ........................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Silicon carbide research ................................................................................ .................... .................... +5,000

COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................... 21,505 28,505 +7,000

Big Crow Program Office Support ................................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

Intelligence analysis advanced tool set ........................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................... 3,072 6,072 +3,000

Aircrew coordination training ........................................................................ .................... .................... +3,000

EW TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 15,359 20,359 +5,000

Shortstop ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... +5,000

NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 33,341 46,141 +12,800

Helmet mounted infrared sensor (vision technology) ................................... .................... .................... +3,800

Backpack UAV for brigade-combat tests (BUSTER) ...................................... .................... .................... +9,000

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................ 1,616 11,116 +9,500

Corrosion measurement and control project ................................................. .................... .................... +9,500

ARMY MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION (DEM/VAL) ................................. 12,573 28,173 +15,600

Full dimensional visualization software ........................................................ .................... .................... +9,000

Aero acoustic instrumentation ....................................................................... .................... .................... +2,500

Family of systems simulator ......................................................................... .................... .................... +4,100

155

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ............................................................. 30,139 50,139 +20,000

XM–1007 ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... +20,000

ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT SYSTEM (ATAS) ........................................................ 118,139 268,139 +150,000

MAV RDTE Shortfalls ...................................................................................... .................... .................... +150,000

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEM/VAL ................................................. 4,897 14,897 +10,000

Commercialization of technology to lower defense costs ............................. .................... .................... +10,000

WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ADV DEV ................................................................... 28,679 36,179 +7,500

Objective crew served weapon ...................................................................... .................... .................... +7,500

MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV ............................................................................... 15,259 15,509 +250

Portable Low-Power Blood Cooling and Storage Devices ............................. .................... .................... +250

TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE (TUGV) .................................................... 0 300 +300

Viking platform engineering analysis, including M1 .................................... .................... .................... +300

TACTICAL EXPLOITATION OF NATIONAL CAPABILITIES—EMD ................................. 57,419 43,419 ¥14,000

Semi-Automated imagery processor .............................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

Discoverer II ................................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥17,000

BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR SUBMUNITION (BAT) ......................................................... 96,102 101,102 +5,000

P31 Seeker for BAT (Note: Funds are only for a follow-on seeker for

ATACMS–BAT) ............................................................................................ .................... .................... +5,000

JOINT SURVEILLANCE/TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM .......................................... 17,898 26,898 +9,000

COTS technology insertion common ground station (Note: Within the

budget request, $4,000,000 is only for the remaining SIP–3 engineering/retrofit efforts and UAV connectivity for SCDL) ................................. .................... .................... +9,000

AVIATION—ENG DEV ............................................................................................... 7,104 12,104 +5,000

Advanced integrated helmet system ............................................................. .................... .................... +5,000

WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ENG DEV ................................................................... 22,505 30,505 +8,000

M2HB .50 caliber quick change barrel ......................................................... .................... .................... +1,500

Small arms fire control system ..................................................................... .................... .................... +2,500

120MM Short Range Practice cartridge ........................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

SENSE AND DESTROY ARMAMENT MISSILE—ENG DEV .......................................... 52,848 0 ¥52,848

SADARM P31 .................................................................................................. .................... .................... ¥21,043

XM982 ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... ¥31,805

ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE ....................... 33,420 39,420 +6,000

Next generation command and control system (Note: Only for the integration of the Army’s Advanced Warfare Environment’s commercial technology solution and architecture into the Army’s legacy and emerging

command and control systems) ................................................................ .................... .................... +6,000

THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 13,901 16,101 +2,200

Next generation anti-tank guided missile program (XM–ATGM) .................. .................... .................... +2,200

CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM ............................................................... 15,410 15,410 0

Mounted maneuver battlespace lab .............................................................. .................... .................... [5,000]

ARMY TEST RANGES AND FACILITIES ...................................................................... 119,657 129,657 +10,000

White Sands missile range test instrumentation ......................................... .................... .................... +10,000

ARMY TECHNICAL TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS .................................... 33,156 37,256 +4,100

Advanced comprehensive engineering simulator and missile planning tool .................... .................... +4,100

SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 27,248 34,748 +7,500

Information operations/Vulnerability analysis ............................................... .................... .................... +7,500

DOD HIGH ENERGY LASER TEST FACILITY .............................................................. 14,521 35,521 21,000

HELSTF ........................................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Solid state laser program (Note: Of the funds for Solid State Laser no

less than $5,000,000 is only for industrially-developed solid state

laser diode arrays and no less than $3,000,000 is only for

optooelectronics) ........................................................................................ .................... .................... +18,000

TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES ..................................................................... 25,749 30,499 +3,750

Army High Performance Computing Research Center .................................. .................... .................... (1,147)

Army High Performance Computing Research Center (Note: No less than

$4,897,000 is only for the Army High Performance Computing Research

Center. Additional information is provided in the IT section) ................. .................... .................... +3,750

MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAEFTY ................................ 11,276 14,776 +3,500

Cyrofracture anti-personnel mine disposal system ....................................... .................... .................... +3,500

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ............................................................................... 0 3,000 +3,000

Natural gas boilers ........................................................................................ .................... .................... +3,000

DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCT .................... 0 3,000 +3,000

National Terrorism Preparedness Institute .................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ........................................................ 99,423 112,823 +13,400

Field emission display program .................................................................... .................... .................... +5,900

156

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

AN/VVR–1 upgrade ........................................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

M1 track development program .................................................................... .................... .................... +3,500

AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .......................... 95,829 97,829 +2,000

Guardrail tactical integrated broadcast system ........................................... .................... .................... +2,000

AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .................................... 2,929 7.929 +5,000

Full authority digital engine control .............................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

Variable displacement vane pump & liquid-or-light end air boost pump

equipped fuel delivery unit ....................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

DIGITIZATION ........................................................................................................... 29,671 31,671 +2,000

Digitization: Ft. Hood ..................................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

FORCE TWENTY-ONE (XXI), WARFIGHTING RAPID ACQUISITION .............................. 6,021 0 ¥6,021

Termination .................................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥6,021

INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ........................................................ 8,140 20,440 +12,300

Information Assurance: PKI ........................................................................... .................... .................... +4,500

National Ground Intelligence Center/National Collaborative Environment ... .................... .................... +3,800

National Ground Intelligence Center/FIRES project ....................................... .................... .................... +4,000

END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES ................................................ 57,906 81,906 +24,000

TIME ............................................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Optics manufacturing .................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

‘‘AA’’ zinc air batteries for military applications (Note: additional funds

are provided in PE 0602705A) .................................................................. .................... .................... +2,000

Munitions manufacturing .............................................................................. .................... .................... +15,000

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

The Committee is concerned that the Army’s current concept of

operations for its Tactical UAV (TUAV) appears shortsighted by

not addressing future UAV requirements. The Army has not adequately addressed requirements for such things as longer range

and more versatile payload options. Therefore, the Committee directs the Army to submit a report by June 15, 2001, which identifies UAV requirements not met by the TUAV and its plan for meeting those requirements.

RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

RAND ARROYO CENTER

The Army requested $19,872,000 for the Rand Arroyo Center, the

Committee recommends the budget request. Of the budgeted

amount, $1,000,000 is only for the Center for Naval Analyses to

conduct a study of Army acquisition practices as discussed elsewhere in this report.

EXCALIBUR (XM–982)

The Army requested $31,805,000 for the development of the Excalibur (XM–982) 155mm artillery round. The Committee recommends no funding. The Excalibur development program, which

began in 1998, was to have cost approximately $50 million and be

completed in 45 months. Today, the Army estimates that Excalibur

will spend 87 months, or seven years, in development, and cost

over $135 million dollars. Additionally, the Committee believes that

the Excalibur artillery round is not synchronized with the Army

plan for fielding the Interim Brigades. Given the excessive cost

growth, schedule delay and the fact that the Excalibur round fielding will not be in sync with the Interim Brigades, the Committee

recommends no funds.

157

Although the Committee terminates the Excalibur program, the

requirement for an improved artillery projectile still exists. The

Committee directs the Army to provide, no later than July 10,

2000, a report that outlines alternatives for meeting the Army’s

155mm improved artillery projectile requirement. The report is to

include capabilities, estimated development cost, production cost,

and the schedule for each alternative. The Committee directs that

the Army consider the Trajectory Correctable Munition as one of

the alternatives.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:

158

159

160

161

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $9,110,326,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 8,476,677,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 9,222,927,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +746,250,000

This appropriation provides funds for the research, development,

test and evaluation activities of the Department of the Navy and

the Marine Corps.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

AIR AND SURFACE LAUNCHED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ......................................... 37,966 52,966 +15,000

Pulse detonation engine technology .............................................................. .................... .................... +4,000

Free electron laser upgrade ........................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

Solid fuel RAMJET .......................................................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

SHIP, SUBMARINE & LOGISTICS TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 44,563 47,563 +3,000

Three dimensional printing metalworking technology ................................... .................... .................... +3,000

COMMUNICATIONS, COMMAND AND CONTROL, INTELLIGENCE ............................... 79,905 91,905 +12,000

Center for Communications and Networking Technologies .......................... .................... .................... +10,000

Optoelectric high definition camera prototypes ............................................ .................... .................... +2,000

HUMAN SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 30,939 38,139 +7,200

Biological hazard detection system ............................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

Marine Fire Training Center at the Marine and Environmental Research

and Training Station (MERTS) .................................................................. .................... .................... +2,200

MATERIALS, ELECTRONICS AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY ..................................... 68,076 92,026 +23,950

Wood composite technology ........................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

Silicon carbide semiconductor material ........................................................ .................... .................... +5,000

Defense productivity software initiative ........................................................ .................... .................... +3,200

Ceramic and carbon based composites for use in strategic missiles and

hypersonic vehicles ................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Aerospace Materials Technology Consortium ................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

Environmentally sound ship program ............................................................ .................... .................... +1,250

Hybrid fiberoptic wireless communications ................................................... .................... .................... +2.500

Battlespace information display technology initiative development demonstration .................................................................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

UNDERSEA WARFARE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY ............................................... 52,488 53,388 +900

Lithium carbon monofluoride ion cells for battery applications .................. .................... .................... +900

OCEANOGRAPHIC AND ATMOSPHERIC TECHNOLOGY .............................................. 60,320 68,070 +7,750

Chemical, optical and physical sensor systems for mine countermeasures .................... .................... +6,000

South Florida Ocean Measurement Center .................................................... .................... .................... +1,750

UNDERSEA WARFARE WEAPONRY TECHNOLOGY ..................................................... 35,028 37,028 +2,000

Undersea warfare microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) ........................ .................... .................... +2000

DUAL USE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ................................................. 10,067 11,067 +1,000

NAVAIR technology commercialization initiative ........................................... .................... .................... +1,000

AIR SYSTEMS AND WEAPONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ......................................... 39,667 54,667 +15,000

Aircraft affordability project DP–2 ................................................................ .................... .................... +3,500

IHPTET ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... +1,000

Integrated hypersonic aeromechanics tool program (IHAT) .......................... .................... .................... +2,500

Eye safe LADAR .............................................................................................. .................... .................... +8,000

SURFACE SHIP & SUBMARINE HM&E ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................ 37,432 68,232 +30,800

Superconducting DC motor ............................................................................ .................... .................... +10,000

Portable hybrid electric power systems ......................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Virtual testbed for reconfiguring ships ......................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Electromagnetic propulsion systems ............................................................. .................... .................... +4,000

Ship service fuel cell ..................................................................................... .................... .................... +2,800

Project M ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

Advanced waterjet propulsor (AWJ–21) ......................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

MARINE CORPS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) ........................ 54,749 61,249 +6,500

C3RP .............................................................................................................. .................... .................... +1,500

162

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

Spike Urban Warfare System ......................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 10,110 94,110 +84,000

National Bone Marrow Program ..................................................................... .................... .................... +34,000

Coronary/Prostate Disease Reversal .............................................................. .................... .................... +6,000

Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance ................................... .................... .................... +5,000

Medical Readiness Technology [Note: Only for continuation of the medical

readiness technology initiatives to verify and validate telemedicine’s

clinical impact afloat and ashore, and to integrate crucial medical

data transfer system for operations in a joint environment.] ................. .................... .................... +9,000

Naval Blood Research Laboratory .................................................................. .................... .................... +4,000

Optical Imaging of Brain ............................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Post-Polio Syndrome ...................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

RobotEyes [Note: Only to integrate RobotEyes optical sensing system with

prosthesis devices to improve opportunities for disabled/handicapped

service members to remain on active duty.] ........................................... .................... .................... +1,000

Rural Health [Note: Includes first responder emergency communications

and telerehabilitation.] .............................................................................. .................... .................... +8,700

Rural Health Deployed Military Patient Records ........................................... .................... .................... +2,300

Vectored Vaccine Research [Note: The Committee recommends $4,000,000

only to develop NTVS for non-invasive vaccination at the surface of

the skin.] ................................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Teleradiology [Note: The Committee recommends $3,000,000 only for teleradiation and mammography imaging.] ................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADV TECH DEV ....................................... 26,988 42,988 +16,000

Advanced Distributed Learning (Note: Funds are only to continue efforts

to standardize distributed learning courseware.) .................................... .................... .................... +10,000

WARCON (Note: Funding is only for the continuation of the Distributed

Simulation Warfighting Concepts to Future Ship Design (WARCON) program to develop and implement an integrated acquisition environment

architecture.) ............................................................................................. .................... .................... +6,000

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND LOGISTICS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................... 24,002 39,002 +15,000

Depleted Uranium Emulsion-based Stabilization Technologies [Note: only

for field demonstration of this range maintenance technology at China

Lake Naval Air Weapons Station and other facilities.] ............................ .................... .................... +8,000

Resource Preservation Initiative .................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Aviation depot maintenance technology demonstration at NADEP Jacksonville ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... +3,000

NAVY TECHNICAL INFORMATION PRESENTATION SYSTEM ....................................... 49,506 49,506 ....................

[Note: Up to $2,000,000 is only for the continuation of the Center for Defense Technology and Education at the Naval post-graduate school.]

UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................... 58,296 62,296 +4,000

Advanced technology demonstration to prototype a multi-function hullmounted sonar .......................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION .................................................................... 76,333 79,533 +3,200

Vectored thrust ducted propeller ................................................................... .................... .................... +3,200

C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................... 29,673 35,673 +6,000

Dominant battlespace command initiative ................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 19,680 24,680 +5,000

Stochastic Resonance and BEARTRAP Initiatives ......................................... .................... .................... +5,000

TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE ................................................................. 1,956 2,356 +400

Spares procurement for Predator UAV under Navy testing authority ........... .................... .................... +400

SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES .................................. 97,929 99,429 +1,500

UUV Center of Excellence at NUWC ............................................................... .................... .................... +1,500

SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE ......................................................................... .................... 11,000 +11,000

Anti-torpedo all-up round .............................................................................. .................... .................... +6,000

Ship-towed tripwire sensor ............................................................................ .................... .................... +3,000

Distributed Engineering Center ..................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 148,952 152,952 +4,000

ASW tactical decision aids—integrating software/prototype fielding ......... .................... .................... +4,000

SHIPBOARD SYSTEM COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT .................................................. 244,437 254,437 +10,000

Permanent magnet motor .............................................................................. .................... .................... +10,000

ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT .................................................... 113,269 129,769 +16,500

Conformal acoustic velocity sonar (CAVES) .................................................. .................... .................... +5,000

Common Towed Array .................................................................................... .................... .................... +8,000

High performance brush technology .............................................................. .................... .................... +3,500

163

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN ......................................................................... 162 5,162 +5,000

Human integration information system in the Automated Maintenance Environment ................................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION .............................................................................. 32,966 65,966 +33,000

Optically multiplexed wideband radar beamformer ...................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Common command and decision functions for theater air and missile defense .......................................................................................................... .................... .................... +30,000

CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS ..................................................................................... 28,619 30,619 +2,000

Demonstration/validation and production of environmentally safe energetic materials .......................................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES ....................................................................... 137,981 144,281 +6,300

Advanced radio antenna interface unit ........................................................ .................... .................... +6,300

MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................ 23,216 25,216 +2,000

Advanced modeling and simulation for the USMC integrated infantry

combat system program ........................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT .......................................... 13,131 14,681 +1,550

Remote ordnance neutralization system (RONS) ........................................... .................... .................... +1,550

COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................... 119,257 179,257 +60,000

[Note: Only for DII–COE compliance, data analysis for large networks,

multi-level secure operations, CEC network node expansion, airborne

antennae improvements and planar array production.] .......................... .................... .................... +60,000

NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 4,942 7,942 +3,000

Proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells [Note: Only to demonstrate

domestically produced PEM fuel cells at the Marine Corps Air Ground

Combat Center.] ........................................................................................ .................... .................... +3,000

NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY ................................................................................ .................... 11,000 +11,000

Virtual systems implementation program ..................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

Rapid retargeting logistics technology .......................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 143,044 146,044 +3,000

Naval Fires Network Demonstrator and Tactical Dissemination Module ...... .................... .................... +3,000

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—DEM/VAL ................................................................. 131,566 206,566 +75,000

Additional risk reduction and flight test [Note: The Committee designates

the Joint Strike Fighter as an item of special congressional interest.] .. .................... .................... +75,000

SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINE ....................... 34,100 38,100 +4,000

Navy Collaborative integrated information technology initiative .................. .................... .................... +4,000

OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 24,393 38,393 +14,000

Upgrade ship ground station at NAWCAD to a ship and air integration facility ........................................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

CH–60S airborne mine countermeasures [Note: Only for continued systems engineering development of the CH–60S carriage, stream, tow,

and recovery system.] ............................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................... 95,814 103,814 +8,000

Joint services metrology program .................................................................. .................... .................... +5,000

Calibration and measurement technology for reduced crew size ................ .................... .................... +3,000

MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT .......................................... 69,946 79,946 +10,000

ATIRCM/CMWS integration on the SH–60R ................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

TADIRCM ......................................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

P–3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ............................................................................. 2,906 8,906 +6,000

APS–137B(V)5 radar ...................................................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM ................................................................................. 57,817 60,817 +3,000

Ocean surveillance information system (OSIS–OED) .................................... .................... .................... +3,000

AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 17,466 34,466 +17,000

Joint helmet mounted queuing system ......................................................... .................... .................... +7,000

Modular flight helmet/Advanced visionics helmet system/Helicopter integrated life support system (HAILSS) ......................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

K–36 ejection seat ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥6,439

Joint ejection seat program ........................................................................... .................... .................... +10,439

EW DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 97,281 133,781 +36,500

Spray cooling technology for EA–6B ICAP III program ................................. .................... .................... +8,500

Location of GPS system jammers (LOCO GPSI) ............................................ .................... .................... +6,000

EA–6B Link-16 connectivity ........................................................................... .................... .................... +15,000

Integrated defensive electronic countermeasures (IDECM) .......................... .................... .................... +7,000

SC–21 TOTAL SHIP SYSTEM ENGINEERING ............................................................. 305,274 257,274 ¥48,000

Development cost growth .............................................................................. .................... .................... ¥50,000

Power node control centers ........................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

164

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

AIRBORNE MCM ...................................................................................................... 47,312 50,312 +3,000

Remote technical assistance support to deploying MCM ships ................... .................... .................... +3,000

SSN–688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION ............................................................... 34,801 62,801 +28,000

Advanced food-service technology ................................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

Multi-purpose processor (MPP) SBIR follow-on for advanced processing

builds ......................................................................................................... .................... .................... +25,000

NEW DESIGN SSN .................................................................................................... 207,091 212,091 +5,000

MPP–SBIR follow-on for technology insertion and refresh for Virginia SSN

combat system .......................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM .............................................................. 20,492 26,492 +6,000

Integration of advanced tactical software, AN/UYQ–70 and other off the

shelf products into backfit submarine combat control systems ............. .................... .................... +6,000

SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/LIVE FIRE T&E ................................................................. 62,204 72,204 +10,000

Littoral support fast patrol craft ................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES ................................................................ 3,291 28,291 +25,000

AN/UYQ–70 [Note: Only to develop and implement technology refresh capabilities to incorporate into future AN/UYQ–70 workstation production

across surface, submarine, and air platforms.] ...................................... .................... .................... +25,000

JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION ............................................................................ 26,151 29,151 +3,000

DAMASK component packaging ..................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 5,273 27,273 +22,000

Bone Marrow Transplant Technology [Note: The Committee recommends

$4,000,000 only for the unrelated donor marrow transplantation clinical trials of graft engineering.] ............................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Dental Research ............................................................................................. .................... .................... +6,000

High Resolution Digital Mammography ......................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Mobile Integrated Diagnostic and Data Analysis System (MIDDAS) ............ .................... .................... +2,000

Voice Interactive Device [Note: Only for continued modification, demonstration, and validation of the Naval voice interactive device as a

tool for medical personnel on-board ships or in the field to facilitate

the collection, processing, storing, and forwarding of critical medical

data for treating combat casualties.] ...................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

DISTRIBUTED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................... 20,710 35,710 +15,000

ADS–P3I for alternative power source (FDS–C) ............................................ .................... .................... +9,500

ADS-risk mitigation/processing software ...................................................... .................... .................... +5,500

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ........................................................................ 295,962 145,962 ¥150,000

EMD deferment [Note: The Committee designates the Joint Strike Fighter

as an item of special congressional interest.] ........................................ .................... .................... ¥150,000

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 15,259 23,259 +8,000

Human Resources Enterprise Strategy .......................................................... .................... .................... +8,000

MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ........................................................................................ 40,707 44,707 +4,000

Acquisition/installation of refurbished SPS–48E radar systems for test

and evaluation support ............................................................................. .................... .................... +4,000

STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—NAVY ............................................................. 8,056 6,056 ¥2,000

Freeze to fiscal year 2000 level .................................................................... .................... .................... ¥2,000

TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES ...................................................................... 949 10,949 +10,000

Supply Chain Management ............................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

Commercialization of Advanced Technology (CAT) program [Note: only to

establish the CAT program at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems

Center.] ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT .................................................. 12,694 7,694 ¥5,000

Lower priority TENCAP projects ...................................................................... .................... .................... ¥5,000

MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT ............................................................. 8,091 14,891 +6,800

Consequence Management Information System ............................................ .................... .................... +6,800

STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT .................................................... 42,687 54,687 +12,000

Radiation hardened technology computer aided design program ................ .................... .................... +10,000

Alternate pendulous integrating gyro accelerometer and Hemispherical

resonator gyro development ...................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

E–2 SQUADRONS ..................................................................................................... 18,698 37,698 +19,000

E–2/C–2 eight blade composite propeller .................................................... .................... .................... +8,000

E–2C Middleware Technology and Advanced Processing Builds .................. .................... .................... +5,000

NCW development, test and evaluation in support of Naval Fires Network

Demo .......................................................................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ..................................................................... 16,928 27,928 +11,000

Web Centric Warfare (WeCAN) technology expansion to other warfare

areas and domains ................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

165

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

ASW Combat Systems Integration—onboard signal processor development .................... .................... +6,000

CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................... 27,059 34,559 +7,500

Battleforce tactical trainer [Note: Only for the continuation of the current

upgrade of the BFTT system to a Windows-NT/PC based system to improve the interfaces to other ship and shore based systems.] ............... .................... .................... +7,500

HARM IMPROVEMENT .............................................................................................. 21,355 46,355 +25,000

AARGM ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... +25,000

MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ......................................................... 96,153 107,153 +11,000

MEWSS P3I ..................................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

Combined Arms Command and Control Training Upgrade (CACTUS) [Note:

Only for the upgrade of the USMC training facilities to implement the

Joint Simulation System for use in the Marine force’s CACTUS] ............ .................... .................... +6,000

MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS .......................... 22,124 39,424 +17,300

Expeditionary indirect fire general support weapon system ......................... .................... .................... +17,300

INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ........................................................ 21,530 30,130 +8,600

Information Assurance: PKI ........................................................................... .................... .................... +8,600

TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ................................................................ 113,052 129,052 +16,000

MSAG for Tactical Control System (TCS) ....................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

Navy joint operational testbed for UAVs ....................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

Navy UAV display system to combine data retrieved from multiple UAVs

into a network ........................................................................................... .................... .................... +1,000

AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEM ................................................................... 4,759 15,759 +11,000

Upgrade Storyfinder/Landmark systems with SEI ......................................... .................... .................... +6,000

EP–3 upgrade/weight reduction study; redesign of common electronic receivers/tuners; development, design, and flight test of new lightweight

equipment racks ........................................................................................ .................... .................... +5,000

MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .................................................................... 27,479 65,079 +37,600

Sensor upgrade on special project aircraft .................................................. .................... .................... +2,600

Ongoing SHARP development efforts ............................................................. .................... .................... +18,000

Acquisition and test of small SAR for potential SHARP P31 ....................... .................... .................... +9,000

Lens development for longer stand-off range .............................................. .................... .................... +5,000

Advanced focal plane array for increased sensor reliability ........................ .................... .................... +3,000

MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT ................................................................... 9,106 12,106 +3,000

C41SR modeling and simulation ................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................... 59,626 69,626 +10,000

Program increase ........................................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

DD–21 NEXT GENERATION SURFACE COMBATANT

The Navy requested $305,274,000 for continued ship systems engineering for the DD–21 surface combatant program. The Committee recommends $257,274,000, a decrease of $48,000,000. The

Committee remains supportive of this program but has substantial

reservations concerning the Navy’s current acquisition strategy for

the DD–21. In the name of innovation and in a departure from all

previous new ship design and development programs, the Navy has

elected to give the industrial teams competing for the DD–21 considerable latitude in determining the ship’s overall design and incorporation of subsystems—the theory being that the contractors

are free to propose ‘‘best value’’ solutions to the Navy’s operational

requirements as long as certain key performance parameters are

met. While this approach is commendable in many ways, it leaves

open several questions which have yet to be addressed in an adequate manner by the Navy. The questions are as follows:

Applicability of other Navy technology programs to the DD–21

program.—The Office of Naval Research maintains a robust program for surface ship technologies which are being developed in the

name of the DD–21 program. By some estimates there are 26 technology demonstration projects totaling over $600,000,000 in the fiscal year 2001 budget request which claim relevance to the DD–21

166

program. There is no guarantee, however, that any of these technologies will find their way onto the DD–21 platform since the development teams are free to choose any technologies they want

without input or insight from the Navy. If this is the case, then it

raises the question of whether all these technology demonstrations

are truly necessary.

Unique Integrated Logistics Support.—The DD–21 will be the

first Navy ship to have a full service contractor. A full service contractor has the opportunity to provide all maintenance and support

services for the ship class during its life cycle. The division of these

support services between the ultimate contractor and Navy support

systems is an issue to be proposed by the competing design teams

as part of their concept designs. The Committee is concerned that

a full service contractor may make decisions on logistics support of

the DD–21 that will limit the Navy’s options when making ship operation and management decisions. In the worst case the Navy

may be forced to carry two different shore infrastructures for integrated logistics support: a traditional track for legacy ships and a

separate track for the DD–21. Additionally, this approach may create unintended conflicts between the Navy’s legacy supply organization and industry.

Interoperability.—The DD–21 must have the ability to interact,

coordinate, and share information with other ships and units in a

joint task force. Its primary mission of land attack requires it to

work with U.S. Marine Corps and Army ground forces as well as

with Allied forces. It will also be expected to operate as part of a

carrier battle group. It is the Committee’s understanding that the

fleet can never attain total system integration if there is a divergence in the hardware and software that contractors are installing

on the DD–21 and what the Navy is installing on other ships. The

DD–21 program is proposing to use commercial off the shelf equipment and components to a greater degree than the Navy has on

prior ships. Again, the Committee is concerned that due to the

unique nature of the DD–21 acquisition strategy, the Navy is not

giving any direction or suggestions to the DD–21 design teams that

would reduce the risk of interoperability problems with the rest of

the fleet or other services.

Finally, the Committee’s greatest concern is that the DD–21 acquisition strategy is precluding the use of innovative technologies

from small companies in the design of the ship. It is troublesome

that major design decisions for critical subsystems on the DD–21

are being locked in without the benefit of an open consideration of

the broadest array of technologies possible. The Committee believes

that in the name of innovation, the Navy may actually be discouraging its practice.

The Committee therefore directs the Navy to prepare a report

which addresses these issues, as well as the following questions

concerning the DD–21 acquisition strategy:

(1) What is the proper role of the Navy in ensuring new technology from the widest range of vendors is given fair consideration

in the DD–21 source selection process?

(2) What mechanism or process is in place to introduce new technology that isn’t developed directly by present DD–21 design team

members?

167

(3) How does the Navy differentiate between technology that impacts the ship’s initial design and requires an early milestone decision, and technology that can be incorporated in mid or late stages

of design?

(4) What is the optimal method for instilling competition among

technical approaches without incurring unacceptable cost growth?

The report should be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than March 15, 2001.

SHARED RECONNAISSANCE POD (SHARP)

The Committee has provided a total of $17,000,000 for risk reduction and P3I initiatives for the SHARP program. The risk reduction efforts are financed with an additional $5,000,000 to develop/upgrade the sensor to an 18–inch lens and integrate an existing dual-band sensor into the TARPS pod and $3,000,000 to develop an advanced focal plane array with moving target indicator

(MTI) for a smaller electo-optical framing camera size. The Committee has also provided $9,000,000 for the acquisition and evaluation of a small synthetic aperture radar (SAR) within the TARPS–

CD program as a potential P3I for the SHARP program. The Naval

Research Lab is directed to continue funding other ongoing projects

in electro-optical framing at no less than the funding level of fiscal

year 2000.

The Committee has also provided $18,000,000 in additional funds

for the SHARP program to maintain its current and very aggressive deployment schedule. DD Form 1414 shall show this as a special congressional interest item.

NETWORK CENTRIC WARFARE (NCW)

The Committee believes that existing and emerging technologies

could be used to enhance the dissemination of intelligence data

through the networking of various Intelligence, Surveillance and

Reconnaissance (ISR) and national platforms. The Committee directs the Navy to pursue a study of technologies that would benefit

the goal of Network Centric Warfare.

Additionally, the Committee has provided a total of $9,000,000

for NCW and a Naval Fires Network Demonstration. The Committee believes these funds should be used in conjunction to develop the Naval Fires Network Demonstrator, test the tactical dissemination of intelligence for Time Critical Strike Capabilities onboard the E–2C, and refine the NCW concept of operations.

NAVY, MARINE CORPS IMAGERY PROCESSING EXPLOITATION

The Committee understands the need for close interoperability

between the Navy and the Marine Corps in the area of precision

targeting, imagery exploitation and amphibious operations. The

Committee recognizes that the schedules of related service intelligence programs present an opportunity for greater coordination in

this area, and recommends that the Services consolidate their efforts into one coordinated plan to ensure ground exploitation and

precision targeting interoperability.

168

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS)

The Committee is concerned that the Navy’s current plans for

use of UAVs appear disjointed. Multiple organizations are developing multiple plans and requirements with what appears to be little internal communication about these plans and requirements.

The Navy’s recent UAV studies contract, in conjunction with its recently announced contract for a VTOL UAV, presents a confusing

picture of the Navy’s intentions.

Furthermore, despite obvious interest and continual questioning

on the part of the Committee, the Navy has not responded with information which outlines its objectives or plans with respect to

UAVs. While recent risk reduction contracts for the ‘‘multi-role endurance unmanned aerial vehicle’’ are for studies of how a UAV

could potentially be employed, this type of activity has not been

clearly articulated to the Committee. It is difficult for the Committee to help the Navy meet its UAV requirements when they

have not been presented.

Therefore, the Committee directs the Navy to submit a report by

December 15, 2000, which addresses all of its plans for unmanned

aerial vehicles. At a minimum, the report should address: (1) all

identified requirements; (2) requirements that remain un-met with

the current UAV contracts, especially any requirement for support

of deep-strike operations; and, (3) a description of the roles and responsibilities of the various organizations within the Navy which

claim jurisdiction over UAV programs. The Navy should consider

more centralized management of the various UAV programs to ensure a coordinated approach to meeting requirements.

BONE MARROW REGISTRY

The Committee provides $34,000,000 to be administered by the

C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program, also known, and referred to, within the Naval Medical Research Center, as the Bone Marrow Registry. This DoD donor center has recruited 230,000 DoD volunteers, and provides more marrow donors per week than any other donor center in the Nation.

The Committee is aware of the continuing success of this life saving program for military contingencies and civilian patients, which

now includes 4,000,000 potential volunteer donors, and encourages

agencies involved in contingency planning to include the C.W. Bill

Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program in the

development and testing of their contingency plans. DD Form 1414

shall show this as a special congressional interest item, and the

Committee directs that all of the funds appropriated for this purpose be released to the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program within 60 days of enactment of the

Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Appropriations Act.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

169

170

171

172

173

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR

FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $13,674,537,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 13,685,576,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 13,760,689,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +75,113,000

This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and

Evaluation activities of the Department of the Air Force.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommenda- tion

Change from

request

DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES .............................................................................. 206,149 216,149 +10,000

Sacramento Peak Observatory ....................................................................... .................... .................... (600)

Chabot Observatory ........................................................................................ .................... .................... +2,000

Astronomical Active Optics ............................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

Coal based advanced thermally stable jet fuel ............................................ .................... .................... +4,000

MATERIALS .............................................................................................................. 72,815 83,515 +10,700

IR detectors, RF and power electronics ........................................................ .................... .................... +2,000

Special Aerospace Materials and Manufacturing Processes ........................ .................... .................... +5,200

Thermal Management for Space Structures .................................................. .................... .................... +2,500

Advanced Physical Vapor Transport Growth Process .................................... .................... .................... +1,000

AEROSPACE FLIGHT DYNAMICS ............................................................................... 48,775 52,315 +3,540

Weapons systems logistics, deployed base systems technology, and force

protection ................................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,540

HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................... 62,619 63,019 +400

Altitude protection ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +400

AEROSPACE PROPULSION ........................................................................................ 116,262 118,262 +2,000

Lithium Ion Battery ........................................................................................ .................... .................... +2,000

AEROSPACE SENSORS ............................................................................................. 65,644 69,644 +4,000

3D non-volatile memory ................................................................................. .................... .................... +4,000

HYPERSONIC TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM .................................................................... 0 5,000 +5,000

Hypersonic electric power system .................................................................. .................... .................... +5,000

SPACE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................... 57,687 61,687 +4,000

Terabit ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

COMMAND CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS ......................................................... 78,749 90,549 +11,800

Simulation Based Acquisition ........................................................................ .................... .................... +11,800

ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS ..................................................... 21,678 48,928 +27,250

Aging aircraft ................................................................................................. .................... .................... +10,000

National Composite P4A Initiative ................................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

Advanced Low Observable Coatings .............................................................. .................... .................... +6,000

Special Aerospace Materials and Manufacturing Processes ........................ .................... .................... +5,250

National Center for Industrial Competitiveness ............................................ .................... .................... +3,000

AEROSPACE PROPULSION SUBSYSTEMS INTEGRATION ........................................... 34,440 35,440 +1,000

IHPTET ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... +1,000

ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS .......................................................................... 28,311 44,811 +16,500

IDAL IR simulator and RF and IR integration ............................................... .................... .................... +6,000

National Radar Signature Production and Research Capability (RCAS) ...... .................... .................... +10,500

FLIGHT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 2,445 7,645 +5,200

Weapons systems logistics, deployed base systems technology, and force

protection ................................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,200

AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY ............................................ 41,964 45,464 +3,500

174

Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

request

(Note: $3 million is only to establish a next generation aerospace research initiative through the investigation of a broad range of science

and technologies which integrates private research centers involved in

both aeronautic and space research with major research universities

and technical colleges, small businesses and manufacturers in support of aerospace and engine propulsion capabilities, to improve the

nation’s aerospace research, development, and manufacturing base

and address the growing shortfall within the aerospace specialized

technological workforce) ............................................................................ .................... .................... +3,000

Vectored Thrust Ducted Propeller Compound Helicopter demonstration for

combat rescue ........................................................................................... .................... .................... +500

CREW SYSTEMS AND PERSONNEL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY ............................... 12,479 19,479 +7,000

High Brightness Helmet Display .................................................................... .................... .................... +7,000

FLIGHT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION .......................................................... 13,184 18,184 +5,000

Trans-Atmospheric Aerospace Plane (TAAP) study by ASC ........................... .................... .................... +5,000

ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................... 25,882 27,882 +2,000

IDAL Coherent C3NI Signal Simulations ........................................................ .................... .................... +2,000

SPACE AND MISSILE ROCKET PROPULSION ............................................................ 24,283 28,283 +4,000

Pulse detonation engine ................................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 0 23,000 +23,000

GPS Range Safety .......................................................................................... .................... .................... +23,000

ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ................................................................... 97,327 60,087 ¥37,240

Discoverer II ................................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥54,240

Miniature Satellite Threat Reporting System (MSTRS) ................................. .................... .................... +3,000

Satellite survivability ..................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Scorpius ......................................................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................ 33,371 42,371 +9,000

High Resolution Space Object Imaging ......................................................... .................... .................... +9,000

SPACE-BASED LASER .............................................................................................. 63,216 35,000 ¥28,216

Program reduction ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥28,216

INFORMATION OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................... 991 0 ¥991

Transfer funds to 0303140F .......................................................................... .................... .................... ¥991

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER ............................................................................................ 129,538 204,538 +75,000

Risk reduction and flight testing .................................................................. .................... .................... +75,000

INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (DEM/VAL) ....................................................... 24,488 15,788 ¥8,700

Integrated Broadcast System ........................................................................ .................... .................... ¥8,700

AIR FORCE/NATIONAL PROGRAM COOPERATION (AFNPC) ....................................... 3,370 1,370 ¥2,000

Duplication of effort ...................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥2,000

INTEGRATED AVIONICS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT .......................................... 712 0 ¥712

Program reduction ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥712

B–1B ....................................................................................................................... 168,122 158,122 ¥10,000

IDECM delays ................................................................................................. .................... .................... ¥10,000

B–2 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY BOMBER ................................................................. 48,313 145,313 +97,000

500lb JDAM integration ................................................................................. .................... .................... +56,000

Inflight replanning ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +11,000

EGBU–28 ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... +25,000

EHF risk reduction ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

EW DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 58,198 56,298 ¥1,900

CMWS—Air Force withdrawal from program. Prior year funds shall be

used to support the joint program through FY 2001 ............................... .................... .................... ¥19,800

MALD .............................................................................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

PLAID for ALR–69 .......................................................................................... .................... .................... +14,900

MILSTAR LDR/MDR SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) .................................... 236,841 241,841 +5,000

Integrated Satellite Communications Control ............................................... .................... .................... +5,000

ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 8,876 25,876 +17,000

Cast Ductile Bomb ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

Miniature Munitions Capability ..................................................................... .................... .................... +15,000

AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT ........................................................................................ 668 0 ¥668

Program reduction ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥668

JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION ............................................................................ 1,157 26,157 +25,000

500lb JDAM .................................................................................................... .................... .................... +25,000

LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 14,758 26,358 +11,600

K–36 ejection seat ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥6,250

Joint ejection seats program ......................................................................... .................... .................... +13,850

Standardized cockpit and crew seats ........................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

175

Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

request

COMBAT TRAINING RANGES .................................................................................... 12,559 16,559 +4,000

ADOSM ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

INTEGRATED COMMAND & CONTROL APPLICATIONS (IC2A) ................................... 214 0 ¥214

Program reduction ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥214

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER EMD .................................................................................... 299,540 149,540 ¥150,000

Defer EMD ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥150,000

RDT&E FOR AGING AIRCRAFT ................................................................................. 14,204 29,204 +15,000

Aging aircraft ................................................................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

Aging landing gear life extension ................................................................. .................... .................... +12,000

TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 191 0 ¥191

Program reduction ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥191

MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ........................................................................................ 54,057 68,807 +14,750

Laser Induced Surface Improvement (LISI) ................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

X–15 test stand at Edwards AFB ................................................................. .................... .................... +250

Multi-axis thrust stand at Edwards AFB ...................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

Eglin range improvements ............................................................................. .................... .................... +7,500

INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION ............................................................ 28,238 33,238 +5,000

AFOTEC ........................................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

F–16 SQUADRONS ................................................................................................... 124,903 133,903 +9,000

SAR for TARS podded reconnaissance system .............................................. .................... .................... +9,000

F–15E SQUADRONS ................................................................................................. 61,260 68,860 +7,600

BOL IR ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... +7,600

AF TENCAP .............................................................................................................. 9,826 16,826 +7,000

Hyperspectral research on Predator UAV ....................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Hyperspectral research on high altitude reconnaissance platforms ............ .................... .................... +3,000

COMPASS CALL ....................................................................................................... 5,834 25,834 +20,000

Signal analysis subsystem ............................................................................ .................... .................... +10,000

SPEAR ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... +10,000

JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM) .............................................. 120,281 113,281 ¥7,000

Defer pre-production operational test units per GAO recommendation ....... .................... .................... ¥7,000

JOINT SURVEILLANCE AND TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM ................................. 144,118 151,318 +7,200

GATM .............................................................................................................. .................... .................... +7,200

USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION ......................................................................... 17,624 18,624 +1,000

STORM ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... +1,000

WARGAMING AND SIMULATION CENTERS ................................................................ 3,874 8,874 +5,000

Theater Air Command and Control Simulation Facility (TACCSF) ................ .................... .................... +5,000

INFORMATION WARFARE SUPPORT .......................................................................... 1 0 ¥1

Program reduction ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥1

INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ........................................................ 7,212 25,703 +18,491

Transfer from 0603690F ................................................................................ .................... .................... +991

Information Assurance: System protection through exploration of adaptive

information protection technology using and modifying COTS technology ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... +2,000

Information Assurance: CDAD ........................................................................ .................... .................... +10,000

Information Assurance: PKI ........................................................................... .................... .................... +5,500

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) PLAN .............................................................. 200 0 ¥200

Program reduction ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥200

TACTICAL TERMINAL ................................................................................................ 238 0 ¥238

Program reduction ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥238

DEFENSE RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT ACTIVITIES (SPACE) ................................... 45,149 38,049 ¥7,100

Reduction taken against projects that duplicate TENCAP ........................... .................... .................... ¥7,100

NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE AND CONTROL) .......................... 250,197 261,097 +10,900

Amended budget submission ........................................................................ .................... .................... +10,900

SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) ....................................................................... 53,654 85,154 +31,500

Modernization of Edwards AFB test stand 1D .............................................. .................... .................... +12,600

Extended Range Concept Requirements Analysis ......................................... .................... .................... +1,600

Flight Termination System Requirements ...................................................... .................... .................... +700

Design of Space Launch Ops Complex at Vandenberg, AFB ........................ .................... .................... +5,500

Activation of Edwards AFB test stand 2A for rocket component tests ........ .................... .................... +11,100

DRAGON U–2 (JMIP) ................................................................................................ 27,546 31,546 +4,000

SYERS polarization project ............................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ............................................................ 109,215 128,215 +19,000

Replacement of EO/IR sensors on existing Global Hawk UAV ...................... .................... .................... +12,000

Development of dual band sensor capabilities and precision target

location ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... +7,000

176

Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

request

AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ................................................................. 136,913 143,913 +7,000

Wideband integrated common data link ....................................................... .................... .................... +7,000

DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND SYSTEMS ............................................................ 21,330 25,830 +4,500

Eagle Vision IV ............................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,500

NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM (SPACE) ...................................................................... 17,088 12,088 ¥5,000

Program reduction ......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥5,000

SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES ................................................................................ 1,109 2,109 +1,000

Universal Biological Sensor ........................................................................... .................... .................... +1,000

AFSOC Aircrew Orientation and Screening .................................................... .................... .................... +600

Develop methodology for approving medications for use by aircrew ........... .................... .................... +400

DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON–IF) .............................................................................. 1,515 4,515 +3,000

Metrology ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... +3,000

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................... 53,082 57,582 +4,500

Special Aerospace Materials and Manufacturing Processes ........................ .................... .................... +4,500

SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 32,258 42,258 +10,000

Advanced Engine Simulation and Optimization Program ............................. .................... .................... +2,500

Aircraft and Systems Support Infrastructure ................................................ .................... .................... +2,500

IMDS ............................................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

COMPUTER RESOURCES SUPPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CRSIP) .................. 2,356 7,356 +5,000

NPLACE ........................................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Air Resource Rapid Reapplication Tools ....................................................... .................... .................... +1,000

RADIATION HARDENED ELECTRONICS

The Committee commends the Department of Defense for the establishment of the Radiation Hardened Oversight Council and for

the initiatives recently taken to assure the availability of radiation

hardened microelectronics components. These components are essential to meet the Department’s unique requirements and are crucial to the success of current and future national security systems.

The investment strategy directed by the Undersecretary of Defense

for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics will assure adequate

funding to meet science & technology and producibility needs from

fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2005. It is imperative that this

strategy is executed with the full cooperation and participation of

the Services and Agencies involved.

Not later than April 1, 2001, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a report on the implementation of the Radiation Hardened Electronics Investment

Strategy as directed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. The report will describe the degree

of participation in the strategy by the Services and Agencies involved and the impact of the strategy on the availability of radiation hardened electronics components needed to satisfy the Department’s integrated and prioritized requirements for national security systems.

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM

The Air Force budgeted $18,093,000 for the air traffic control, approach, and landing system. The Committee recommends

$58,093,000, an increase of $40,000,000 only for development of the

mobile air traffic control system. The Air National Guard operates

tactical deployable air traffic control systems developed in the

1950s, which provide 65 percent of the total Air Force radar approach control capability for wartime and contingency support.

These units are no longer supportable and require cannibalization

177

and extensive maintenance to keep wartime-tasked units at least

marginally operational. There are no fully operational radars in the

Air National Guard due to age of equipment and lack of parts. The

Congress added funds in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to address this

urgent requirement, but the Air Force did nothing with these

funds. The Air Force proposes a new development program for both

active and Guard mobile air traffic control systems, which unfortunately does not result in fielding equipment to Guard units on a

timely basis. The additional $40,000,000 recommended by the Committee consists of $10,000,000 only to accelerate the development

of the mobile air traffic control system and $30,000,000 only to procure test asset/contingency mobile air traffic control systems at no

less than three Air National Guard locations selected by the Director of the Air National Guard. The test assets are intended to be

the first three systems delivered to the government under the development program, and should be used by Guard units to assist

in further development of the objective system. The Committee directs that none of the funds in this Act for development of mobile

air traffic control systems for the Air Force and the Air National

Guard may be obligated until the Assistant Secretary of Defense

for Reserve Affairs certifies to the congressional defense committees that the development program meets schedule and performance requirements of Air National Guard units and that the first

three systems will be fielded only to Guard units as test assets

under the development program. The Committee further directs

that all funds provided for development of the mobile air traffic

control system are of special interest, and shall be so designated

on DD Form 1414. Reprogramming request FY 99–012PA is hereby

denied, and $8,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 and $2,000,000 in fiscal

year 2000 other procurement funds are proposed for rescission elsewhere in the bill.

HIGH ALTITUDE ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (HAE UAV)—

GLOBAL HAWK

The Committee directs the Air Force to submit by March 15,

2001, a report which addresses its plan for acquiring the Global

Hawk UAV. The report should address: (1) the cost of the program

through the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP); (2) the schedule

for development and acquisition; (3) the total number of air vehicles scheduled for acquisition; (4) the overall cost of the program;

and, (5) the potential of the air vehicle to exceed the $10 million

cost cap previously imposed by the Department.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

178

179

180

181

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION,

DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $9,256,705,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 10,238,242,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 10,918,997,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +680,755,000

This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and

Evaluation, Defense-Wide activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request Recommended Change fromrequest

DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES .............................................................................. 90,415 100,415 +10,000

Spin Electronics [Note: The Committee has transferred $10,000,000 from

PE 601103D8Z from the Nanotechnology Initiative. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 only to strengthen the spin electronics

programs.] ................................................................................................. .................... .................... +10,000

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ........................................................................ 253,627 289,627 +36,000

Advanced Power and Energy Program ........................................................... .................... .................... +1,000

Multi-disciplinary atmospheric and hydrologic research .............................. .................... .................... +3,000

Computational Neuroscience ......................................................................... .................... .................... +1,000

National Security Training [Note: $1,000,000 is only for an educational

program to encourage non-traditional and minority students to enter

national security and foreign policy careers through a new training

partnership between the Department of Defense, a Hispanic Serving

Institution located in an empowerment zone, and one or more institutions of higher education that have expertise in international affairs.

This program would be focused on a continuum of education and support for successful students at two-year colleges to continue their

studies at higher levels in order to expand the pools of minority

groups for leadership roles in the Department of Defense.] ................... .................... .................... +1,000

Defense Commercialization Research Initiative ............................................ .................... .................... +4,000

Electro-Magnetic Nanopulse .......................................................................... .................... .................... +2,500

MEMS ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... +1,500

MEMS for Rolling Element Bearings ............................................................. .................... .................... +1,500

MEMS sensors for Radionuclides Detection and Ordnance Monitoring

[Note: The Committee recommends $9,500,000 only for Radionuclides

Detection and Ordnance Monitoring.] ....................................................... .................... .................... +9,500

Quantum-Dot Cellular Automata Nanoscience and Technology Research ... .................... .................... +4,000

Remote Sensing ............................................................................................. .................... .................... +6,000

Technology Insertion Demonstration (SEI) ..................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

Desert Environmental Research: [Note: The Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 only for a University based GIS program using

sensor technology, line distance sampling, and spatial analysis techniques to monitor desert tortoise population related to potential expansion of the Fort Irwin National Training Center.] ..................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Spin Electronics [Note: The Committee transfers $10,000,000 from the

Nanotechnology Initiative to PE 601103E for Spin electronics

programs.] ................................................................................................. .................... .................... ¥10,000

Bioengineering/Nanotechnology Research [Note: Only to establish a program to develop interdisciplinary research and development for bioengineering in advanced medicine, based on nanotechnology and the

new synthetic capabilities afforded by molecular self-assembly such

as the synthesis of mushroom nanostructures and DNA-like ribbon

nanostructures and the discovery of key features of the self-assembly

of the cell’s cytoskeleton, to address medical problems of concern for

national security such as improved treatment for battlefield wounds

and better defense against biological warfare.] ...................................... .................... .................... +5,000

182

Budget

request Recommended Change fromrequest

INFORMATION ASSURANCE ...................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

DEF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH .............. 9,859 19,859 +10,000

Program Increase ........................................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM .................................................. 33,197 40,197 +7,000

Chemical Agent Detection ............................................................................. .................... .................... +7,000

SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES—APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................... 37,747 50,247 +12,500

Wide band Gap Electronics ........................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

Bottom Anti-Reflective Coatings ................................................................... .................... .................... +2,500

MEDICAL FREE ELECTRON LASER ........................................................................... 15,029 25,029 +10,000

Program increase ........................................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

HISPANIC SERVING INSTITUTIONS ........................................................................... .................... 5,000 +5,000

Hispanic Serving Institutions [Note: The Committee recommends

$5,000,000 only for Hispanic Serving Institutions.] ................................. .................... .................... +5,000

COMPUTING SYSTEMS AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ................................ 376,592 335,592 ¥41,000

Reuse Technology (RTAP) ............................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Program reduction due to program growth ................................................... .................... .................... ¥45,000

EXTENSIBLE INFORMATION SYSTEMS ...................................................................... 69,282 49,282 ¥20,000

Program reduction due to program growth ................................................... .................... .................... ¥20,000

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ............................................................................. 162,064 166,564 +4,500

Biological and Chemical Terrorism Response and Training [Note: The

Committee recommends $10,000,000 only for the continuation of a

joint biological and chemical terrorism response training program.] ..... .................... .................... +10,000

Biological and Chemical Terrorism Response and Training [Note: The

Committee recommends $7,000,000 only for the continuation of a joint

biological and chemical terrorism response training program.] ............. .................... .................... +7,000

Asymmetrical protocols for biological warfare defense ................................ .................... .................... +4,000

Desalination Research ................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,500

Program reduction due to program growth ................................................... .................... .................... ¥20,000

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM .................................................. 73,600 75,600 +2,000

Improved Detection of WMD .......................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

INTEGRATED COMMAND AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ............................................ 31,761 38,761 +7,000

High Definition Systems ................................................................................ .................... .................... +7,000

MATERIALS AND ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 249,812 259,312 +9,500

Materials in Sensors and Actuators Technology [Note: The Committee recommends $9,500,000 only for continuation of the Materials in Sensors

and Actuators technology.] ....................................................................... .................... .................... +9,500

NUCLEAR SUSTAINMENT & COUNTERPROLIFERATION TECHNOLOGIES ................... 230,928 225,428 ¥5,500

Thermionics .................................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

Discrete Particle Methods .............................................................................. .................... .................... +3,500

Program reduction due to program growth ................................................... .................... .................... ¥14,000

EXPLOSIVES DEMILITARIZATION TECHNOLOGY ........................................................ 8,964 23,164 +14,200

Advanced Cutting Technology ........................................................................ .................... .................... +1,200

Contained Detonation .................................................................................... .................... .................... +10,000

Hydrothermal Oxidation [Note: The Committee recommends $3,000,000

only for Hydrothermal Oxidation of Energetics.] ....................................... .................... .................... +3,000

COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ................................................... 41,307 48,307 +7,000

Blast Mitigation [Note: Only for blast mitigation testing.] .......................... .................... .................... +4,000

Facial Recognition ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES—ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................... 93,249 123,249 +30,000

Atmospheric Interceptor Technology .............................................................. .................... .................... +15,000

Excalibur ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... +15,000

SPACE BASED LASERS (SBL) .................................................................................. 74,537 58,000 ¥16,537

Space Based Laser ........................................................................................ .................... .................... ¥16,537

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADVANCED DEV ..................... 46,594 49,344 +2,750

Chemical and Biological Defense Research .................................................. .................... .................... +2,000

Small Unit Biological Detector [Note: The Committee recommends

$750,000 only for the Marine Corps Small Unit Biological Detector program for continuation of an industry-based development program for

microfluidic devices for chemical and biological agents detection and

analysis.] ................................................................................................... .................... .................... +750

Anthrax Vaccine [Note: The Committee recommends $1,000,000 from

within available funds only to accelerate the development of a second

generation anthrax vaccine at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.] ..................................................................... .................... .................... [1,000]

SPECIAL TECHNICAL SUPPORT ................................................................................ 10,777 14,777 +4,000

183

Budget

request Recommended Change fromrequest

Complex Systems Design/MULTI VIEW—Data Standards for Integrated

Digital Environment (DSIDE) ..................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

ARMS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 52,930 69,930 +17,000

Basic and Applied Research to Support Nuclear Monitoring [Note: Of the

amount provided ($6,000,000 in the request plus the increase of

$6,000,000) for peer reviewed basic and applied research to support

operational nuclear test monitoring requirements: $4,000,000 is only

for applied explosion seismology research and; $8,000,000 is only for

basic research.] ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +6,000

Continuation of an Industry-Based Research Program [Note: The Committee recommends $6,000,000 only for innovative technologies and

equipment, as part of the effort to ensure compliance with arms control treaties, which is only to be used for the continuation of an industry based research program for developing systems using advances

in solid nuclear detectors, processing electronics, analysis software,

and chemical detection and identification technology.] .......................... .................... .................... +6,000

Nuclear Weapons Effects ............................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ................................... 23,082 47,382 +24,300

Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor Retrofits (CMOS) ..................... .................... .................... +3,500

Computer Assisted Technology Transfer (CATT) ............................................ .................... .................... +4,000

Air Logistics ................................................................................................... .................... .................... +300

Gate Array Reverse Engineering .................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Multiple Soft Core Integration ....................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

Si28 Super Lattice Research Project ............................................................. .................... .................... +3,000

Systems Simulation of Electronically Compressed Function ........................ .................... .................... +3,500

Competitive Sustainment Demonstration Program ....................................... .................... .................... +3,000

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ............................................... 51,357 57,357 +6,000

Toxic Chemical Cleanup Criteria ................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Environmental clean-up workers safety [Note: Only to continue the research and demonstration program devoted to health and safety

issues of environmental clean-up and shipyard workers.] ...................... .................... .................... +3,000

COOPERATIVE DOD/VA MEDICAL RESEARCH ........................................................... 0 1,000 +1,000

Review of Biopsies ......................................................................................... .................... 1,000 +1,000

ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................. 191,800 211,800 +20,000

Center for Advanced Microstructures (CAMD) ............................................... .................... .................... +4,000

MEMS for Deep Silicon Etch Technology [Note: The Committee recommends an increase of $8,000,000 only for the completion of the

deep silicon etch technology MEMS project at the Army Research

Laboratory.] ................................................................................................ .................... .................... +8,000

Laser Plasma Point Source X-ray Lithography .............................................. .................... .................... +5,000

Advanced Lithography Demonstration ........................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

ADVANCED CONCEPT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS .......................................... 116,425 116,425 ....................

WMD Consequence Management [Note: The Committee recommends

$5,200,000 from within available funds only to prepare a WMD Consequence Management program for bases and stations in conjunction

with the National Terrorism Preparedness Institute at the Southwest

Public Safety Institute to include a pilot program at a base under the

Commander in Chief, Pacific Command.] ................................................ .................... [5,200] ....................

SENSOR AND GUIDANCE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................... 182,225 149,125 ¥33,100

Large Millimeter Telescope ............................................................................ .................... .................... +4,000

Discoverer II ................................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥40,100

Radar Vision Technology ................................................................................ .................... .................... +3,000

PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 35,108 26,107 ¥9,001

Reduction for program growth ...................................................................... .................... .................... ¥9,001

ADVANCED SENSOR APPLICATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................ 15,534 24,534 +9,000

Component Development for Active Sensors ................................................. .................... .................... +5,000

Solid State Technology ................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

NAVY THEATER WIDE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM ................................................... 382,671 512,671 +130,000

Accelerate Program ........................................................................................ .................... .................... +80,000

Radar Competition ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +50,000

MEADS CONCEPTS—DEM/VAL ................................................................................ 63,175 53,475 ¥9,700

Reduction for Program Growth ...................................................................... .................... .................... ¥9,700

BMD TECHNICAL OPERATIONS ................................................................................ 270,718 292,718 +22,000

Liquid Surrogate Targets ............................................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

Optical Data/Sensor Fusion ........................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

184

Budget

request Recommended Change fromrequest

Wide Bandwidth Technology .......................................................................... .................... .................... +15,000

JOINT SERVICE EDUCATION AND TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT [Note: At the

OSD Joint ADL co-laboratory.] ............................................................................ 0 3,500 +3,500

JOINT ROBOTICS PROGRAM—EMD ......................................................................... 11,553 16,553 +5,000

Vehicle Teleoperation ..................................................................................... .................... .................... +5,000

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 12,000 13,500 +1,500

DLA Web Based Tracking ............................................................................... .................... .................... +1,500

GENERAL SUPPORT TO C3I ..................................................................................... 3,769 34,469 +30,700

Information Assurance: JCOATS–IO ............................................................... .................... .................... +9,700

ASD (C3I) Global Infrastructure Data Capture Initiative [Note: Only for the

acquisition and digital conversion of critical engineering and infrastructure data.] ......................................................................................... .................... .................... +21,000

INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ........................................................ 290,771 322,771 +32,000

Information Assurance: Project Condor ......................................................... .................... .................... +20,000

Projection of vital data .................................................................................. .................... .................... +12,000

DEFENSE IMAGERY AND MAPPING PROGRAM ......................................................... 74,975 103,975 +29,000

Exploitation of moving targets ...................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

EDGE Viewer Upgrade .................................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

EDGE Viewer—visualization and bomb blast for force protection .............. .................... .................... +4,000

GEOSAR .......................................................................................................... .................... .................... +15,000

Automated Document Conversion for NIMA libraries .................................... .................... .................... +4,000

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................... 7,090 9,090 +2,000

Metalcasting Technology ................................................................................ .................... .................... +2,000

SPECIAL OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................... 7,360 10,360 +3,000

Special Operations Mobile Robotic Vehicle ................................................... .................... .................... +3,000

SPECIAL OPERATIONS TACTICAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ..................................... 133,520 156,620 +23,100

Tri-Band Antenna Signal Combiner ............................................................... .................... .................... +5,100

Multi-Mode, Multi-band Personal Communications System and Remote

Trunking System ........................................................................................ .................... .................... +6,000

Leading EDGE ................................................................................................ .................... .................... +5,000

Autonomous Landing Guidance System Technology ...................................... .................... .................... +6,000

Littoral Warfare Craft/Surface planing wet submersible boat ..................... .................... .................... +1,000

SPECIAL OPERATIONS INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................. 3,022 9,022 +6,000

Tactical video system .................................................................................... .................... .................... +2,000

Joint Threat Warning System ......................................................................... .................... .................... +4,000

SOF OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ........................................................................ 87,071 95,071 +8,000

Small Combatant Craft ................................................................................. .................... .................... +8,000

CCDOTT [Note: $15,000,000 is only for the Center for Commercial Deployment

of Transportation Technologies from within funds available for RDT&E, Defense-Wide.] ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... [15,000]

ARMS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

The proliferation of nuclear weapons continues to be one of the

most serious threats facing the U.S. today. A cornerstone of a

strong nuclear proliferation deterrent is an effective U.S. operational monitoring capability. Developing such a capability requires

a sustained and robust seismic research program. The Committee

directs that $12,000,000 shall be available only for peer-reviewed

basic and applied seismic research specifically to address validated

Air Force operational nuclear test monitoring requirements. Of this

amount, $4,000,000 shall be available only for peer-reviewed applied seismic research and $8,000,000 shall be available only for

peer-reviewed basic seismic research.

The Committee also directs the Department to vigorously pursue

transition of the research results into operations. The Committee

further directs the Department to segregate the basic and applied

research funds for this program into clearly identifiable projects

within the 6.1 and 6.2 budget categories; and to improve integration of the basic and applied components of the program. Further,

the Committee directs the Department to provide by December 1,

185

2000, a detailed report to the Committee on the plan for obligating

these funds.

HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING PROGRAM

The Committee remains very concerned about the health of the

DoD’s High-Performance Computing Modernization Program

(HPCMP). This program is essential to DoD efforts to develop technologically superior weapons, warfighting capabilities, and related

systems. However, the program has fallen behind in its primary

mission to procure high performance computing hardware for DoD

production activities. Due to procurement shortfalls, DoD lags behind industry, the Department of Energy, and the National Science

Foundation in supercomputing technology—eroding DoD’s ability to

address its most technologically challenging projects. As a step toward correcting this problem, the Committee has added

$48,000,000 only for the procurement of high performance computing hardware, and strongly urges DoD to address the procurement shortfalls in the fiscal year 2002 budget.

NATIONAL IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY (NIMA)

STILL-IMAGE COMPRESSION STANDARD

The Committee directs NIMA to take the lead in developing an

integrated plan for transitioning imagery infrastructures to fully

exploit the opportunities provided by the soon to be ratified StillImage Compression Standard JPEG–2000.

COMPETITIVE PRACTICES

The Committee anticipates that NIMA will pursue all avenues of

fair and open competition for the acquisition of technology, goods

and services.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

186

187

188

189

DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $265,957,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... ............................

Committee recommendation .............................................................. ............................

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

This appropriation funds the Developmental Test and Evaluation

activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends no funds, as proposed in the budget.

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $31,434,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 201,560,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 242,560,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +41,000,000

This appropriation funds the Operational Test and Evaluation

activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request Recommended Change fromrequest

CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CT) ...................... 121,401 147,401 +26,000

Magdalena Ridge ........................................................................................... .................... .................... +7,000

Roadway Simulator ........................................................................................ .................... .................... +12,000

Silent Sentry ................................................................................................... .................... .................... +7,000

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ..................................................................... 17,172 22,172 +5,000

Increase program for improvement of tests ................................................. .................... .................... +5,000

LIVE FIRE TESTING .................................................................................................. 9,712 19,712 +10,000

Live Fire Testing ............................................................................................ .................... .................... +10,000

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

The Department requested $201,560,000 for Operational Test

and Evaluation, Defense. The Committee recommends

$242,560,000, an increase of $41,000,000.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Operational Test & Eval, Defense—RDT&E Management Support:

Central Test and Evaluation Investment Development ............... 121,401 147,401 +26,000

Operational Test and Evaluation ................................................. 17,172 22,172 +5,000

Live Fire Testing .......................................................................... 9,712 19,712 +10,000

Development Test and Evaluation ............................................... 53,275 53,275 ..........................

Total, Operational Test & Eval, Defense ................................. 201,560 242,560 +41,000

(191)

TITLE V

REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $90,344,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 916,276,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 916,276,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $916,276,000 for

the Defense Working Capital Funds, the amount proposed in the

budget. The recommendation is an increase of $825,932,000 above

the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000. The Committee notes

that the increase proposed in the budget realigns funding needed

to support the Defense Commissary system.

NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $717,200,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 388,158,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 400,658,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +12,500,000

This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation, and

supply of prepositioning ships; operation of the Ready Reserve

Force; and acquisition of ships for the Military Sealift Command,

the Ready Reserve Force, and the Marine Corps.

READY RESERVE FORCE

The Defense Department requested $258,000,000 for the Ready

Reserve Force. The Committee recommends $270,500,000, an increase of $12,500,000. The additional funding provided by the Committee is only for the Department of Defense to upgrade a ship for

the Ready Reserve Force that can also be used as a training ship

for the Massachusetts Maritime Academy cadets.

(193)

TITLE VI

OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $11,154,617,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 11,600,429,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 12,143,029,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +542,600,000

This appropriation funds the Defense Health Program of the Department of Defense.

SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS

Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in

the project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases ‘‘only

for’’ or ‘‘only to’’ in this report are congressional interest items for

the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each

of these items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated

amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. These items

remain special interest items whether or not they are repeated in

a subsequent conference report.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request Recommended Change fromrequest

Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................... 11,244,543 11,525,143 +280,600

Government Computer-Based Patient Records ............................................. .................... [10,000] 0

Medicare Eligible Health Options .................................................................. .................... 2,000 +2,000

Claims Processing Initiative .......................................................................... .................... 3,600 +3,600

Military Treatment Facilities Optimization .................................................... .................... 134,000 +134,000

Reimbursement for Travel Expenses ............................................................. .................... 15,000 +15,000

Reduced Catastrophic Cap ............................................................................ .................... 32,000 +32,000

TRICARE Senior Pharmacy ............................................................................. .................... 94,000 +94,000

Research and Development .................................................................................... 65,880 327,880 +262,000

Head Injury Program ...................................................................................... .................... 2,000 +2,000

Joint U.S.-Norwegian Telemedicine ................................................................ .................... 4,000 +4,000

Cancer Research [Note: Only for cancer research in the integrated areas

of signal transduction, growth control and differentiation, molecular

carcineogensis and DNA repair, cancer genetics and gene therapy, and

cancer invasion and angiogensis.] ........................................................... .................... 6,000 +6,000

Army Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program ............................... .................... 175,000 +175,000

Army Peer-Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research Program ............................. .................... 75,000 +75,000

194

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request Recommended Change fromrequest

Procurement ............................................................................................................ 290,006 290,006 0

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .............................................................................. 11,244,543 11,525,143 +280,600

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 65,880 327,880 +262,000

PROCUREMENT ........................................................................................................ 290,006 290,006 0

Total ........................................................................................................... 11,600,429 12,143,029 +542,600

TRICARE IMPROVEMENTS

The Committee recommends increases over the budget request totaling $280,600,000 to support several initiatives to improve the

TRICARE health care program. Consistent with action taken in the

House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year

2001 (H.R. 4205), these include additional funds to optimize the

use of Military Treatment Facilities (MTF) and improve TRICARE

business practices ($134,000,000); funding for the TRICARE Senior

Pharmacy program ($94,000,000); a reduction in the catastrophic

cap for retired TRICARE beneficiaries ($32,000,000); reimbursement of certain travel payments for patients who have a referral

more than 100 miles away from their primary health care facility

($15,000,000); improved claims processing ($3,600,000); and an indepth study on health care options for Medicare-eligible military

retirees ($2,000,000).

These initiatives should improve the TRICARE benefit for all

military families by improving access and quality of care. In particular, the funding to optimize MTF usage and business practices

should lead to improved access for both active duty and retired

military families. Within the $134,000,000 recommended for this

initiative, the Committee directs that $85,500,000 be used to provide additional support staff to primary care providers in the military direct care system, in accordance with the House-passed authorization legislation.

In addition to these initiatives, by funding the authorized

TRICARE Senior Pharmacy program, the Committee bill would

provide all Medicare-eligible military retirees with access to prescription drugs through various access points, including the national mail order pharmacy; network and out-of-network pharmacies; and military pharmacies. As a consequence, this should alleviate the disparity in benefit between those military retirees over

the age of 65 who have access to pharmaceuticals because they

have access to a military treatment facility (or one that was recently closed), and those who do not.

TRANSFER OF DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM FUNDS

The Committee directs that any funding made available for the

Defense Health Program, as well as any other Department of Defense activity, shall not be transferred to another agency pursuant

to Section 109 of Public Law 103–317 unless a prior approval reprogramming for any such transfer has been submitted to and approved by the congressional defense committees.

195

ANTHRAX VACCINE PROGRAM

The Committee concurs with the findings of the Institute of Medicine interim report on the anthrax vaccine and directs the Secretary of Defense to: immediately submit all relevant research on

the safety and efficacy of the anthrax vaccine to peer-reviewed scientific journals for publication; make this research available to the

general public through the AVIP website; and establish a statistically significant active long-term monitoring program to document

the relative safety of the vaccine. The Committee is also concerned

by continuing financial difficulties and irregularities identified by

the Inspector General and the Defense Contract Audit Agency and

directs the Department to expeditiously implement adequate accounting measures.

The Committee is concerned by reports that the Department may

seek additional extraordinary contractual relief, beyond the $24.1

million granted in 1999. The risk exposure of the Government as

the principal creditor is already at a maximum level and the contractor already pledged all of its property, plant and equipment as

collateral when contractual relief was granted. Therefore the Secretary is directed to notify the Committees on Appropriations and

the Committees on Armed Services 30 days prior to seeking further

extraordinary contractual relief under P.L. 85–804.

The Committee supports the ongoing work by the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases to develop a second

generation anthrax vaccine that promises to be significantly more

effective and induce fewer adverse reactions. Accordingly, within

available funds, the Committee directs that $1 million be made

available only to accelerate the development of this vaccine. The

Department is directed to report to the Committee on Appropriations, by December 30, 2000, on its plans to significantly accelerate

the availability of this new vaccine as well as any additional unfunded requirement associated with this goal.

CHIROPRACTIC DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

The Committee endorses the recently concluded Department

study that demonstrated that chiropractic care resulted in higher

levels of patient satisfaction, superior outcomes, fewer hospital

stays, and an increase in readiness due to a large reduction in lost

duty days. The Committee accepts the cost analysis of the Oversight Advisory Committee, and concludes that the integration of

chiropractic care on a direct access and full scope of services basis

will increase readiness and retention and produce a net dollar savings for the Department.

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,029,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 1,003,500,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 927,100,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥76,400,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Army requested $1,003,500,000 for Chemical Agents and

Munitions Destruction, Army. The Committee recommends

196

$927,100,000, a decrease of $76,400,000. The Committee directs

that none of the reduction may be applied against the Assembled

Chemical Weapons Assessment program.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:

[In Thousands of dollars]

Budget requestCommittee

recommended

Change from

request

Chem Agents & Munitions Destruction, Army:

Chem Demilitarization—O&M ....................................................................... 607,200 607,200 0

Chem Demilitarization—PROC ...................................................................... 121,900 105,700 ¥16,200

Chem Demilitarization—RDTE ....................................................................... 274,000 214,200 ¥60,200

Total, Chem Agents & Munitions Destruction, Army ................................ 1,003,500 927,100 ¥76,400

DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES,

DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $847,800,000

Fiscal year 2001 request .................................................................... 836,300,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 812,200,000

Change from the budget request ....................................................... ¥24,100,000

This appropriation provides funds for Military Personnel; Operation and Maintenance; Procurement; and Research, Development,

Test and Evaluation for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Department of Defense requested $836,300,000 for Drug

Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee recommends $812,200,000, a reduction of $24,100,000.

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Caper Focus ............................................................................................ +6,000

Puerto Rico ROTHR security ................................................................ +1,200

Southwest Border Fence ....................................................................... +6,000

Southwest Border States Information System .................................... +6,000

Multi-Jurisdictional Counter-drug Task Force ................................... +4,000

Lake County HIDTA ............................................................................. +1,000

Appalachian HIDTA .............................................................................. +3,600

National Interagency Civil-Military Institute ..................................... +2,000

Tethered Aerostat .................................................................................. +10,000

National Counter-narcotics Training Center (Hammer) .................... +4,000

Young Marines ....................................................................................... +1,500

Air National Guard Fighter Operations .............................................. ¥5,000

Special Operations Forces Patrol Coastal ............................................ ¥3,000

GBEGO-Mexico ...................................................................................... ¥3,000

Carribean support .................................................................................. ¥3,000

T-AGOS Support .................................................................................... ¥14,000

DoD Support to Plan Colombia ............................................................ ¥41,400

DOD SUPPORT TO PLAN COLOMBIA

The budget request included $41,400,000 for Department of Defense Support to Plan Colombia. The Committee supports the DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR644.005 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
197

partment’s participation in Plan Colombia and recommended funding the fiscal year 2001 request in the Fiscal Year 2000 Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 3908) which passed the

House on March 30, 2000.

TETHERED AEROSTAT RADAR SYSTEM

The budget request included $32,089,000 to operate and modernize the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS). The Committee recommends $42,089,000, an increase of $10,000,000. The

Committee has also recommended additional funding for TARS operations under Air Force Operation and maintenance as discussed

elsewhere in this report.

The US Customs Service, the North American Aerospace Defense

Command, and the US Southern Command share the joint requirement for critical low-altitude radar surveillance of the Caribbean,

the Gulf coast and Southwestern approaches into US High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. The Committee is aware that the US

Customs Service and the US Air Force have differing views on the

TARS operation and modernization program which is the responsibility of the Air Force.

The Committee, therefore, directs that DD Form 1414 designate

the total amount of funds in all Department of Defense appropriations for the operation and upgrade of the Tethered Aerostat Radar

System as an item of special Congressional interest and restricts

obligation of funds to no more that 50 percent of the amount provided in this act until the following report and joint certification

have been submitted.

The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the status of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System, and to jointly certify that (1) the President’s Budget for fiscal

year 2002 and the accompanying five year budget plan fully meet

the operational and modernization requirements of the US Customs Service, the US Southern Command, and the North American

Defense Command for counter-drug and continental air defense

missions and (2) the management responsibility and corresponding

funding have been allocated to the Department of Defense and to

the Department of the Treasury in a manner which best facilitates

the mission-effectiveness of the system.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $137,544,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 147,545,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 147,545,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $147,545,000 for

the Office of the Inspector General, the amount proposed in the

budget. The recommendation is an increase of $10,001,000 above

the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

(199)

TITLE VII

RELATED AGENCIES

NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION

The National Foreign Intelligence Program consists of those intelligence activities of the government which provide the President,

other officers of the Executive Branch, and the Congress with national foreign intelligence on broad strategic concerns bearing on

U.S. national security. These concerns are stated by the National

Security Council in the form of long-range and short-range requirements for the principal users of intelligence.

The National Foreign Intelligence Program budget funded in the

Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily of resources for the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence

Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency,

National Imagery and Mapping Agency, intelligence services of the

Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force, Intelligence Community Management Staff, and the CIA Retirement and Disability

System Fund.

CLASSIFIED ANNEX

Because of the highly sensitive nature of intelligence programs,

the results of the Committee’s budget review are published in a

separate, detailed and comprehensive classified annex. The intelligence community, Department of Defense and other organizations

are expected to fully comply with the recommendations and directions in the classified annex accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Defense Appropriations bill.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND

DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $209,100,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 216,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 216,000,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ..............

This appropriation provides payments of benefits to qualified

beneficiaries in accordance with the Central Intelligence Agency

Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees (P.L. 88–643). This

statute authorized the establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System (CIARDS) for a limited number of CIA employees

and authorized the establishment and maintenance of a fund from

which benefits would be paid to those beneficiaries.

200

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $216,000,000 for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Systems Fund (CIARDS).

The recommendation is the same as the budget request and

$6,900,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $158,015,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 137,631,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 224,181,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +86,550,000

This appropriation provides funds for the activities that support

the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Intelligence Community.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The budget included a request of $137,631,000 for the Intelligence Community Management Account. The Committee recommends $224,181,000, an increase of $86,550,000 above the request and $66,166,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal

year 2000. Of the amount appropriated under this heading,

$33,100,000 is for transfer to the Department of Justice for operations at the National Drug Intelligence Center. Details of adjustments to this account are included in the classfied annex accompanying this report.

PAYMENT TO KAHO’OLAWE ISLAND CONVEYANCE, REMEDIATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FUND

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $35,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 25,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 25,000,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 for

the Payment to Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and

Environmental Restoration Fund, the amount proposed in the

budget. The recommendation is a decrease of $10,000,000 below the

amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $8,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 budget request ....................................................... 6,950,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 6,950,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The National Security Education Trust Fund was established to

provide scholarships and fellowships to U.S. students to pursue

higher education studies abroad and grants to U.S. institutions for

programs of study in foreign areas and languages.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $6,950,000 for the National Security

Education Trust Fund. The recommendation is the same as the

201

budget request and $1,050,000 less than the amount appropriated

in fiscal year 2000.

(203)

TITLE VIII

GENERAL PROVISIONS

The accompanying bill includes 118 general provisions. Most of

these provisions were included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000 and many have been included

in the Defense Appropriations Act for a number of years.

Actions taken by the Committee to amend last year’s provisions

or new provisions recommended by the Committee are discussed

below or in the applicable section of the report.

DEFINITION OF PROGRAM, PROJECT AND ACTIVITY

For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177) as amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of

1987 (Public Law 100–119) and by the Budget Enforcement Act of

1990 (Public Law 101–508), the following information provides the

definitions of the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ for appropriations contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations

Act. The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall include the

most specific level of budget items, identified in the Department of

Defense Appropriations Act, 2001, the accompanying House and

Senate Committee reports, the conference report and the accompanying joint explanatory statement of the managers of the Committee on Conference, the related classified reports, and the P–1

and R–1 budget justification documents as subsequently modified

by Congressional action.

In carrying out any Presidential sequestration, the Department

of Defense and agencies shall conform to the definition for ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ set forth above with the following exception:

For Military Personnel and Operation and Maintenance accounts

the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ is defined as the appropriations accounts contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

The Department and agencies should carry forth the Presidential

sequestration order in a manner that would not adversely affect or

alter Congressional policies and priorities established for the Department of Defense and the related agencies and no program,

project, and activity should be eliminated or be reduced to a level

of funding which would adversely affect the Department’s ability to

effectively continue any program, project, and activity.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:

204

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which directly

or indirectly change the application of existing law.

Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue ongoing activities which require annual authorization or additional

legislation, which to date has not been enacted.

The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations

on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing

the application of existing law.

The bill includes a number of provisions, which have been virtually unchanged for many years, that are technically considered

legislation.

The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for

more than one year for some programs for which the basic authorizing legislation does not presently authorize each extended availability.

In various places in the bill, the Committee has earmarked funds

within appropriation accounts in order to fund specific programs

and has adjusted some existing earmarking.

Those additional changes in the fiscal year 2001 bill, which

might be interpreted as changing existing law, are as follows:

APPROPRIATIONS LANGUAGE

Language has been amended in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance,

Army’’ which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses, and the amount provided for transfer to the

National Park Service for infrastructure repair improvements at

Fort Baker. Language has been deleted concerning recovery of costs

associated with environmental restoration at government-owned,

contractor-operated facilities; for demolition and removal of Military Traffic Management Command facilities; and concerning the

transfer of funds to the Presidential Commission on Holocaust Assets.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance,

Navy’’ which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Air

Force’’ which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses; and which changes the amount earmarked

for the William Lehman Aviation Center.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance,

Defense-Wide’’ which changes the amount available for emergency

and extraordinary expenses; changes the amount earmarked for security locks, and changes the amount that the Secretary of Defense

may transfer to other accounts in this bill for purposes of classified

activities. Language has also been deleted concerning funds for intelligence activities.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund’’ which allows for additional transfer authorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00210 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR644.005 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
205

ity to the military personnel, procurement, and research, development, test and evaluation accounts.

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction’’ which earmarked $25,000,000 for dismantling and disposal of nuclear submarines.

Language has been included in ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Army’’

which earmarks funds for Army Reserve UH–60 aircraft.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Other Procurement, Army’’

which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement, and the number of vehicles required for physical security of

personnel.

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Shipbuilding and Conversion,

Navy’’ concerning specific program-level appropriations; and incremental funding authority for the LHD–1 Amphibious Assault Ship.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Other Procurement, Navy’’

which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement; adds language for the procurement of a passenger vehicle required for physical security of personnel, and limits the purchase

cost of the vehicle.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Procurement, Marine Corps’’

which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Other Procurement, Air Force’’

which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement; adds language for the procurement of a passenger vehicle required for the physical security of personnel, and limits the purchase cost of the vehicle.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Procurement, Defense-Wide’’

which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement and the number of passenger vehicles required for physical

security of personnel; and deletes language providing funds for

electronic commerce resource centers.

The appropriations paragraph for the ‘‘National Guard and Reserve Equipment’’ account has been deleted which provided funds

for Guard and Reserve equipment.

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Research, Development, Test and

Evaluation, Navy’’ concerning Intercooled Recuperated Gas Turbine

engine technology.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Research, Development, Test

and Evaluation, Air Force’’ prohibiting the development of an ejection seat for the Joint Strike Fighter other than that which is

under development in the Joint Ejection Seat Program.

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Research, Development, Test and

Evaluation, Defense-Wide’’ which earmarks funds for ballistic missile defense programs.

The appropriations paragraph for ‘‘Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense’’ has been deleted which provided funds for the Director, Test and Evaluation.

Language has been included in ‘‘Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense’’ which makes funds available for the Director of

Operational Test and Evaluation to develop policy guidance and

conduct other oversight functions.

206

Language has been amended in ‘‘Defense Working Capital

Funds’’ which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for

replacement.

Language has been included in ‘‘Defense Health Program’’ which earmarks $10,000,000 for HIV educational activities undertaken in

connection with U.S. military training conducted in African nations.

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Drug Interdiction and CounterDrug Activities, Defense’’ which earmarks funds for transfer to

‘‘Military Construction, Air Force’’ in support of the U.S. Southern

Command.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Intelligence Community Man- agement Account’’ which transfers $33,100,000 to the Department

of Justice.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 8005 has been amended which increases the level of general transfer authority for the Department of Defense.

Section 8008 has been amended to delete language providing

multi-year procurement authority for Longbow Apache, the Javelin

missile, F/A–18 E/F, C–17 and F–16; and adds multi-year authority

for Bradley fighting vehicles, DDG–51 destroyers, UH–60 and CH–

60 aircraft.

Section 8017 has been amended with regard to applicability to

persons with disabilities.

Section 8031 has been amended to change the number of staff

years that may be funded for defense studies and analysis by Federally Funded Research and Development Centers.

Section 8053 has been amended to delete language earmarking

funds for a building demolition project.

Section 8054 has been amended to include language which rescinds funds from the following programs:

(Rescissions)

Revised Economic Estimates:

2000 Appropriations:

Aircraft Procurement, Army: Inflation Savings .................... $7,000,000

Missile Procurement, Army: Inflation Savings ..................... 6,000,000

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles,

Army: Inflation Savings ...................................................... 7,000,000

Procurement of Ammunition, Army: Inflation Savings ........ 5,000,000

Other Procurement, Army: Inflation Savings ....................... 16,000,000

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: Inflation Savings ............. 32,700,000

Missile Procurement, Air Force: Inflation Savings ............... 5,500,000

Other Procurement, Air Force: Inflation Savings ................. 6,400,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: Inflation Savings .......................................................................... 19,000,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force:

Inflation Savings .................................................................. 42,000,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, DefenseWide: Inflation Savings ....................................................... 33,900,000

Program-specific Reductions:

1998 Appropriations:

Under the heading, Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy:

SSN–21 attack submarine program ................................... 74,000,000

1999 Appropriations:

Other Procurement, Army: R2000 Engine Flush System .... 3,000,000

Weapons Procurement, Navy: Tomahawk ............................. 22,000,000

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: JSTARS (Contract savings) ...................................................................................... 12,300,000

207

(Rescissions)

Missile Procurement, Air Force: CALCM (Contract Savings) ...................................................................................... 20,000,000

Other Procurement, Air Force: RAPCON (Restructuring

program) ............................................................................... 8,000,000

2000 Appropriations:

Missile Procurement, Army: Javelin (Schedule slip) ............ 150,000,000

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles,

Army: Command and Control Vehicle (Termination) ....... 60,000,000

Other Procurement, Army: SMART–T (Schedule slip) ........ 29,000,000

Aircraft Procurement, Navy: F/A–18 E/F cost savings ......... 6,500,000

Missile Procurement, Air Force: AMRAAM (Budget error) 6,192,000

Other Procurement, Air Force:

SMART–T (Schedule slip) ............................................... 12,000,000

RAPCON (Restructuring program) ................................. 2,000,000

DCGS Communications Segment Upgrade .................... 6,000,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:

WRAP (Unobligated balance) .......................................... 10,000,000

Breacher (Program terminated) ...................................... 42,000,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force:

C–130 (Schedule slip) .......................................................... 30,000,000

Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund: Unused Balance ....................................................................................... 17,000,000

Section 8058 has been amended to substitute the phrase ‘‘Combatant Commands’’ in place of ‘‘Unified and Specified Commands’’

concerning reimbursement for Reserve Intelligence Personnel.

Section 8060 has been amended to delete language concerning secure secretarial offices, support facilities, and the subway entrance

to the Pentagon.

Section 8085 has been included which reduces funds available for

several operation and maintenance accounts by $800,000,000 to reflect working capital fund cash balance and rate stabilization adjustments.

Section 8087 has been amended to delete language concerning

foreign built cranes, and to add language modifying Buy American

requirements.

Section 8089 has been amended to add language to reassess the

structure and content of the managed care support contract program.

Section 8092 has been amended which reduces funds available

for military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts by

a total of $537,600,000 due to favorable foreign currency fluctuations.

Section 8094 has been amended to revise the amounts earmarked to maintain a total inventory of 94 B–52 aircraft.

Section 8095 has been amended to delete language requiring a

DOD Inspector General report on funding for the maintenance of

flag officer quarters.

Section 8096 has been amended to delete language which prohibited the obligation of funds for the Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank program, and deletes funds earmarked for the Air Directed Surface to

Air Missile.

Section 8099 has been amended to revise the limitation on expenditure of funds for information technology systems and to make

the provision applicable to the current fiscal year.

Section 8104 has been amended to provide $5,000,000 to evaluate

a standards and performance based academic model at DoD

schools.

208

Section 8106 has been amended which requires the Secretary of

Defense to report by March 15, 2001 on health care contract liabilities.

Section 8107 has been included which supports civil requirements associated with the Global Positioning System. Section 8108 has been included which makes $115,000,000 of the

funds available in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide’’

available until expended, and allows the Secretary of Defense to

transfer such funds to other federal activities.

Section 8109 has been included which reduces funds available for

military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts by a

total of $463,400,000 due to balances available in the ‘‘Foreign Currency Fluctuation, Defense’’ account.

Section 8110 has been included which prohibits funds for aircraft

modifications until the Secretary of the Air Force submits a report

on Air National Guard F–16 aircraft.

Section 8111 has been included which requires a report on workrelated illnesses resulting from exposure to beryllium or beryllium

alloys.

Section 8112 has been included which earmarks funds from ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Army’’ for security enhancements to the

heliport which supports the National Training Center.

Section 8113 has been included which extends the authority for

an equipment center demonstration program. Section 8114 has been included, which transfers $15,000,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2000 under ‘‘Research, Development, Test

and Evaluation, Army’’ for the Grizzly breacher mineclearing program to ‘‘Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles,

Army’’ for Wolverine heavy assault bridge program; and directs the

Army to obligate $97,000,000 from within available fiscal year 2000

funds for ‘‘Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles,

Army’’ for the procurement of Wolverine heavy assault bridges.

Section 8115 has been included which makes the obligation of fiscal year 2001 appropriations for equipment for a second interim

brigade combat team contingent on certain Secretary of Defense

and Director of Operational Test and Evaluation certifications.

Section 8116 has been included which requires completion of certain testing of the F–22 aircraft prior to low-rate initial production.

Section 8117 has been included which amends existing cost caps

for the F–22 aircraft program.

Section 8118 has been included which requires certain reports on

the Joint Strike Fighter program, and places limitations on the obligation of funds for the program.

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in

the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:

Military Personnel, Army

Military Personnel, Navy

Military Personnel, Marine Corps

Military Personnel, Air Force

Reserve Personnel, Army

Reserve Personnel, Navy

209

Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

Reserve Personnel, Air Force

National Guard Personnel, Army

National Guard Personnel, Air Force

Operation and Maintenance, Army

Operation and Maintenance, Navy

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Environmental Restoration, Army

Environmental Restoration, Navy

Environmental Restoration, Air Force

Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction

Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense

Aircraft Procurement, Army

Missile Procurement, Army

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

Procurement of Ammunition, Army

Other Procurement, Army

Aircraft Procurement, Navy

Weapons Procurement, Navy

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

Other Procurement, Navy

Procurement, Marine Corps

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

Missile Procurement, Air Force

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

Other Procurement, Air Force

Procurement, Defense-Wide

Defense Production Act Purchases

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

Defense Working Capital Funds

National Defense Sealift Fund

Defense Health Program

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense

Office of the Inspector General

210

Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System

Fund

Intelligence Community Management Account

Payment to Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and

Environmental Restoration Fund

National Security Education Trust Fund

Sec. 8104.

Sec. 8022.

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.

The following table shows the appropriation affected by the

transfers:

Appropriations to which transfer is made Amount Appropriations from which transfer is made Amount

Operation and maintenance, Army .............. $50,000,000 National Defense Stockpile Transaction

Fund.

$150,000,000

Operation and maintenance, Navy .............. 50,000,000 ...................................................................... ........................

Operation and maintenance, Air Force ........ 50,000,000 ...................................................................... ........................

Intelligence Community Management

Account.

33,100,000 Dept. of Justice National Drug Intelligence

Center.

33,100,000

TRANSFERS

Language has been included in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance,

Army’’, which provides for the transfer of $6,000,000 to the ‘‘National Park Service’’ for improvements at Fort Baker.

Language has been included in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide’’, which provides for the transfer of $10,000,000 to certain classified activities.

Language has been included in ‘‘Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund’’, which provides for the transfer of funds out

of this account to other appropriation accounts.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration,

Army’’, which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this

account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration,

Navy’’, which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this

account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration, Air

Force’’, which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this

account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide’’, which provides for the transfer of funds out of and

into this account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites’’, which provides for the transfer of funds

out of and into this account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Drug Interdiction and CounterDrug Activities, Defense’’, which transfers funds to other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense.

211

Ten provisions (Sections 8005, 8006, 8015, 8037, 8040, 8060,

8062, 8075, 8108, and 8114) contain language which allows transfers of funds between accounts.

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:

Under the heading, Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1998/2002:

SSN–21 attack submarine program ................................................. $74,000,000

Other Procurement, Army 1999/2001 .................................................. 3,000,000

Weapons Procurement, Navy 1999/2001 .............................................. 22,000,000

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001 ......................................... 12,300,000

Missile Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001 .......................................... 20,000,000

Other Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001 ............................................ 8,000,000

Aircraft Procurement, Army 2000/2002 ............................................... 7,000,000

Missile Procurement, Army 2000/2002 ................................................ 156,000,000

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

2000/2002 ............................................................................................ 67,000,000

Procurement of Ammunition, Army 2000/2002 ................................... 5,000,000

Other Procurement, Army 2000/2002 .................................................. 45,000,000

Aircraft Procurement, Navy 2000/2002 ............................................... 6,500,000

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002 ......................................... 32,700,000

Missile Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002 .......................................... 11,692,000

Other Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002 ............................................ 26,400,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 2000/2001 ....... 71,000,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 2000/2001 72,000,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide 2000/

2001 ..................................................................................................... 33,900,000

Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund .................................... 17,000,000

COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE)

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the rules of the

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italics

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in

roman):

SECTION 8093 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

SEC. 8093. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise provided for the

Department of Defense in this or any other Act for any fiscal year

may be obligated or expended for design, manufacture, or procurement of a nuclear-capable shipyard crane from a foreign source.

Subsection (a) does not apply to the limitation in the preceding sentence.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the rules of the House of Representatives states that:

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.

212

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this

specific power granted by the Constitution.

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation.

[In millions of dollars]

302(b) allocation— This bill—*

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays

Discretionary .......................................... 288,414 279,025 288,297 277,094

Mandatory .............................................. 216 216 216 216

* Excludes scoring of the House-passed FY 2000 supplemental bill, which would increase budget authority by $113 million and increase

outlays by $75 million.

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections

associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying

bill.

[In millions of dollars]

Budget Authority in bill .................................................................................. 288,513

2001 ........................................................................................................... 188,232

2002 ........................................................................................................... 59,380

2003 ........................................................................................................... 21,716

2004 ........................................................................................................... 9,045

2005 ........................................................................................................... 9,011

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, no new budget or outlays are provided by the

accompanying bill for financial assistance to State and local governments.

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules

of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote

on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the

213

names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed

below:

There were no recorded votes.

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

(224)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

Often of the job of this Committee is to ask questions and to

question assumptions. That is especially true in a world of limited

financial resources. Last year the Committee produced a provocative Defense bill which challenged many assumptions underlying

defense budget policy, particularly regarding tactical fighter aircraft and in particular whether the F–22 aircraft was ready for production. This year’s bill is a disappointing return to a more business-as-usual approach. In the context of the Congressional Republican leadership’s budget resolution, which proposes to increase defense but decimate the operation of many other Federal agencies,

this bill is not one that I can support in its present form.

UNREASONABLE FUNDING LEVELS

The President’s budget proposed a hefty increase of $15.8 billion,

or 5.9 percent, over the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level for the

Department of Defense. This was done to pay for the President’s

military pay raise and to meet his commitment of achieving a $60

billion annual procurement level. But his budget balanced this

hefty increase with increases for education, national parks, law enforcement, health and safety, environmental protection and other

important non-Defense programs. The Congressional leadership

abandoned that balance in its Budget Resolution by increasing the

President’s 5.9 percent increase for defense programs funded in

this bill by another $4 billion, by giving away $175 billion over five

years in tax cuts, and by making it all appear to add up by cutting

non-defense discretionary programs by $125 million below inflation

over the next five years. The folly of this approach becomes more

clear with the passage of each domestic appropriations bill that

conforms to the budget resolution. That is demonstrated vividly in

the Legislative Appropriations bill which proposes to dramatically

reduce the number of Capitol police—an inappropriate response to

the well-documented need or increased security to the public and

for protection of the Capitol police force highlighted by the tragic

and senseless murder of two American heroes last year. It is also

demonstrated by the fact that Presidential initiatives to strengthen

education, health care, worker training, and science are being eviscerated.

Adding $4 billion in the defense bill, beyond the hefty $15.8 billion increase proposed by the President, appears very much to be

a case of political one-upmanship.

The President’s budget fully funded the President’s military pay

raise and met his commitment to an annual procurement level of

$60 billion. It proposes significant growth in the number of F/A–

18E/F, F–22, V–22, E–2, and KC–130J aircraft, fully funds the

New Attack Submarine and an aircraft carrier, and increases many

other smaller procurement and research programs. While ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR644.005 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
225

mittee increases in other programs will have positive effects within

the Department of Defense, many of them will not result in a nearterm improvement in combat readiness or enhance the near-term

performance of any troops during combat. In the context of the Republican leadership’s budget resolution, the Committee needs to

take a more disciplined approach.

REFORM

Last year, the Committee sent a strong message to the Pentagon

in a bipartisan and unanimous fashion that it is time to reorient

its spending priorities to meet a broader array of military budget

requirements in the 21st century. This means: (1) paying attention

to so-called ‘‘asymmetrical’’ threats like chemical and biological terrorism, information warfare, smaller scale urban warfare, and

cruise missile defense and (2) bolstering conventional military capabilities like airlift, sealift, electronic jamming, intelligence and

surveillance, and communications. Although the Committee includes a $150 million initiative for hacker-defense of DOD computer systems in this bill, it is the lone example of where the Committee made any follow-through on the priorities it set last year.

This Congress continues to dodge significant attempts at reform

to cut out wasteful military spending that everyone knows is widely prevalent. The authorizing committees have again ignored the

Secretary of Defense’s recommendation to conduct additional

rounds of base closures that ultimately could save the government

over $20 billion. The Congress has apparently grown comfortable

with the status quo—operating military bases that the Defense Department readily admits add little or nothing to our national security.

Each year the General Accounting Office conducts studies which

indicate that many other opportunities exist for large military savings through improved management. During the last year, the General Accounting Office has reported that:

Material financial management deficiencies identified at

DOD, taken together, represent the single largest obstacle

that must be effectively addressed to achieve an unqualified opinion on the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements. DOD’s vast operations (an estimated $1

trillion in assets, nearly $1 trillion in reported liabilities,

and a reported net cost of operations of $378 billion in fiscal year 1999) have a tremendous impact on the government’s consolidated reporting. To date, no major part of

DOD has yet been able to pass the test of an independent

audit. The lack of key controls and information not only

hampers DOD’s ability to produce credible financial statements, but impairs efforts to improve the economy and efficiency of its operations.

For fiscal years 1996–1998, the Navy reported that it

had lost $3 billion of intransit inventory, including some

classified and sensitive items such as aircraft guided-missile launchers, military night vision devices, and communications equipment.

226

In the five years between fiscal years 1994 and 1998, defense contractors returned about $4.6 billion in overpayments from the Department of Defense.

The Defense Department does not need an additional $4 billion

above the increase the President proposed. It could generate an

equivalent amount of buying power if it would simply reform some

of its fundamental management systems. Unfortunately, there are

no initiatives in the Committee’s bill to facilitate that objective, and

we continue to throw good money after bad.

TACTICAL AVIATION PROGRAMS

For too long, the Pentagon has resisted calls to restructure its

hyper-expensive tactical aircraft procurement plan to buy three

separate types of tactical aircraft costing in excess of $300 billion,

even though the traditional Cold War threats for which they were

designed have dissipated and new non-conventional threats are

emerging. Last year, the Committee made this issue a priority in

its deliberations and recommendations. A key point the Committee

raised is whether or not the threat will emerge which justifies this

level of investment and in particular whether it warrants production of the F–22 aircraft.

This bill largely returns to business-as-usual by essentially ‘‘rubber-stamping’’ the Pentagon’s tactical aircraft program, and by sodoing it ignores the key strategic policy question concerning the future of defense tactical aircraft. The Committee’s bill provides

growth in the Navy’s F–18 program, allows the F–22 to enter production even though it is not ready, and allows the Joint Strike

Fighter to enter a more advanced phase of development whose cost

is estimated to be about $20 billion despite warnings from the General Accounting Office that this is premature. The combination of

these actions results in a contractual quagmire from which the

Pentagon and Congress will not be able to extricate themselves. No

new information has been found which suggests that the threat to

American tactical aviation is more formidable or credible than a

year ago.

F–22

This bill approves the budget request of almost $4 billion for the

F–22 program in fiscal year 2001, of which $1.4 billion is for continued development and testing and $2.1 billion is for production

of 10 aircraft. During the past year the Congress has discovered

that: (1) F–22 flight testing has not been conducted to the extent

planned or required; (2) static and fatigue testing are more than

a year behind schedule; (3) the Office of the Secretary of Defense

estimates that F–22 production costs will be approximately $1 billion more than the Air Force has budgeted per year; and (4) the

cost of the development program continues to increase rather than

stabilize.

The cost of the F–22 development program has doubled since

1985 to $24 billion, and only 15 percent of the testing program has

been accomplished since the engineering manufacturing development program began in 1991. Nevertheless, the Committee has apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:09 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 064635 PO 00000 Frm 00232 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR644.006 pfrm02 PsN: HR644
227

proved the request of $2.1 billion for F–22 production—without

question.

The conference agreement last year on the F–22 aircraft prohibits a production decision until the so-called ‘‘block 3’’ software

is flight rested in an actual F–22 aircraft (rather than in a surrogate test aircraft). That testing is not scheduled to occur until the

fall of next year, at the earliest. It should be noted that the Air

Force has to only conduct a single flight test of the block 3 software

to meet the Congressional requirements and to allow the program

to enter low rate initial production. However, many flight test

months are actually required to determine with fidelity whether or

not the software actually works. The taxpayer should have some

reasonable confidence that the aircraft and its software actually

works, prior to entering into billions of dollars of production contracts; in this regard, the program is no closer to being ready to

enter into production than a year ago, and may in fact be worse

off. Three caution-flags have been raised on this program that the

Committee has chosen to ignore.

(1) The Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation

testified before Congress this year and provided strong warnings

that the program continues to be in trouble. He noted that the F–

22 test program is proceeding much more slowly than in previous

aircraft development programs, and even these lagging testing

schedules continue to slip over time. Over the past three years, the

F–22 has lost 49 flight test months that could have been available

for testing—a reduction of 20 percent in the available flight test

months from original plans.

To accommodate the loss of test time and to reduce test costs, the

Air Force has reduced flight test hours by 13 percent (580 flight

test hours). He testified in March:

Basically, not enough of the test program has been completed to know whether or not significant development

problems remain to be corrected.

His testimony also revealed that the current test program does

not include any operational testing under adverse environmental

conditions, especially in rain and cold weather; the flight test aircraft cannot be flown near thunderstorms to identify potential raininduced problems or to gather data on static discharge impact on

the aircraft, a continuing B–2 problem. Effective fire-suppression is

mandatory to achieve a survivable aircraft design, yet the Air

Force now knows that the aircraft’s vulnerable area is 30 percent

higher than the specification calls for.

(2) The Committee’s own Surveys and Investigations staff reported in March 2000 that the decision to enter production in December 2000 is premature. Fatigue-life testing and avionics testing

are the two highest risk areas in the program. Delaying the production decision would significantly reduce the impact of those

risks on the program while concurrently providing more robust

testing of the block 3 software. It recommended to the Committee

that the production decision not be made until the third fatigue life

test is completed, currently scheduled for December 2001 (fiscal

year 2002).

228

If the Committee had heeded these concerns, it would have eliminated all F–22 production funds from this bill and saved $2.1 billion, while also holding the Air Force’s ‘‘feet to the fire’’ to ensure

that it was building aircraft that work.

(3) The General Accounting Office recently recommended that, in

order to meet industrial base concerns, the F–22 low rate production should begin at no more than 6 aircraft per year until development and initial operational test and evaluation are complete. This

would allow the program to avoid significantly expanding production capacity until after operational testing demonstrates the aircraft is suitable for its intended mission. The risks of doing otherwise are: buying systems that will require significant and costly

modifications to achieve satisfactory performance; accepting less capable systems than planned; or deploying substandard systems to

combat forces.

Had the Committee followed this modest recommendation, it

could have eliminated 4 aircraft and saved $828 million in just this

year alone. It is highly troubling that the Committee would approve $2.1 billion for production of 10 F–22 aircraft in fiscal year 2001 given the

strong and clear warnings from three separate and credible organizations that prove the program is not ready to go into production.

This might be understandable if F–22 were an isolated and unique

anomaly in the Air Force acquisition system, or if the threat were

compelling. We know this is not the case.

The only major weapon system the Air Force has delivered below

cost and on time during the last 20 years was its then-highly touted B–1 bomber program. The Air Force rushed into production for

political reasons, and got a fleet of aircraft whose performance defects were so severe that the aircraft now have limited utility in

combat because they cannot adequately protect themselves. The Air Force spent $4 billion on development of the Tri-Service

Standoff Attack Missile, which was subsequently terminated due to

poor cost, schedule, management, and performance issues. The C–17 was estimated to cost about $42 billion for 210 aircraft,

but is now estimated to cost about $45 billion for only 134 aircraft.

The B–2 development contract more than doubled from its initial target value of $9.4 billion to $21.1 billion currently.

Given the fact that the F–22 is clearly not ready to enter into

production, in the context of the Air Force’s very poor track record

of developing its major weapon systems at the times or costs promised, it is disturbing that the Committee would put $2.1 billion at

risk by allowing F–22 production to go forward at this time. The

nation would be better served by investing this $2.1 billion in education, law enforcement, the environment, or other efforts to meet

our international responsibilities and allowing the F–22 technology

to mature before we spend really big money on it.

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

The Joint Strike Fighter, if carried to fruition as currently envisioned by the Department of Defense, will be the largest program

in the Pentagon’s weapons-purchasing plan for the next 20 years

and perhaps in history. The cost of developing and building almost

3,000 aircraft could be over $200 billion.

229

In the early 1990s the Air Force testified that the cost goal for

the F–22 in constant dollars of that era was $35 million each. We

now know that the current estimated unit cost for the F–22 in real

taxpayer dollars is $113 million, which still is based on very optimistic assumptions. This is almost double what today’s F–15 aircraft cost.

The Joint Strike Fighter is in the same position as the F–22 was

a decade ago, and the Department of Defense is selling the program to Congress on the assumption that unit costs will be around

between $28 to $38 million in constant dollars. The F–22 experience makes it hard to believe such preliminary Joint Strike Fighter

unit cost estimates. If the unit costs are off, then the program could

cost much more than $200 billion!

The fiscal year 2001 budget for the Joint Strike Fighter was premised on ending the on-going $3 billion concept demonstration

phase of the program later this year and initiating the next phase

of development known as engineering manufacturing development

on March 1, 2001 at a currently estimated cost of about $20 billion.

The Committee recommends a three month delay (to June 1), but

also allows engineering manufacturing development to commence

once certain reporting requirements have been met.

The General Accounting Office issued a report on the Joint

Strike Fighter in May 200 which states:

Once the development phase beings, a large, fixed investment in the form of human capital, facilities, and materials is sunk into the program and any significant

changes will have a large, rippling effect on cost and

schedule. Beginning the engineering manufacturing development phase when critical technologies are at a low level

of maturity serves to significantly increase program risk

and the likelihood of schedule delays, which in turn result

in increased program costs . . . When the competing contractors experienced design problems and cost overruns,

DOD restructured the program in a manner that will provide less information than originally planned prior to selecting between the two competing contractors. Specifically, the program restructure moves away from best commercial practices that were evident in the original strategy, where technology was being developed ahead of product. Instead, DOD’s approach moves toward the traditional

practice of concurrently developing technologies and products, which often raised cost-benefit issues as a result of

cost increases and schedule delays as problems are encountered in technology development . . . We make a recommendation that the Joint Strike Fighter program office

adjust its currently planned engineering and manufacturing decision date of March 2001 to allow adequate time

to mature critical technologies to acceptable maturity levels before awarding the engineering and manufacturing

development contract.

The Committee is to be congratulated for a thoughtful recommendation in this bill to delay engineering manufacturing development of the Joint Strike Fighter by three months. However, the

230

fiscally prudent course would be to eliminate the remaining $295

million in the bill for fiscal year 2001 Joint Strike Fighter engineering manufacturing development, and to demand that the Department of Defense demonstrate that it has a good understanding

of the results of the $3 billion concept demonstration program that

is about to conclude, ensure that the best acquisition strategy is in

place to ensure future competition within the aircraft industrial

base, and respond to the common-sense concerns of the General Accounting Office. Here again, the Committee has missed an opportunity to save $295 million and apply these funds to more urgent

requirements at home and abroad.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

The Committee’s bill recommends $1.8 billion for national missile

defense. During the past few years the Congress had a very narrow

focus on only the technology issue: ‘‘Does it work and how soon can

we deploy it?’’ The Administration, in its upcoming negotiations

with Russia, is addressing national missile defense and the AntiBallistic Missile treaty in a broader arms-control context aimed potentially at further reductions to nuclear weapons.

In 1985, the Soviet Union had about 11,500 nuclear warheads—

each of which was estimated to have 20 to 30 times the power of

the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Today, Russia has about 5,000

such warheads. The Congress should be encouraging further reductions in global nuclear weapons, and also examining the need for

and timing of national missile defense within a global arms-control

context.

It is disappointing that the Congress in general, and this Com- mittee in particular, has given the Administration $1.8 billion for

national missile defense—without question. And there are plenty of

questions:

• Do we have better national security through deploying a limited

national defense system or by globally reducing nuclear weapons?

• If we deploy a limited national missile defense system, are we

simply causing China to build more nuclear missiles aimed at our

country?

• If we deploy a national missile defense system, do we undermine

our ability to keep our allies like Britain, France, or Canada behind

us on other key security issues down the line?

• Do our proposed national missile defense interceptors have inherent anti-satellite capability, and in ‘‘fixing’’ the missile defense

problem are we inadvertently creating a global arms race for antisatellite weapons?

The Committee should be commended for paying attention to and

providing leadership on tactical aviation issues. But I am wondering why we have done nothing but ‘‘rubber stamp’’ the budget

request for national missile defense? The arms-control issues related to national missile defense must be adequately addressed

eventually. It is my hope that in the future the Committee and the

Congress will focus on them in a thoughtful way, and that we have

a good understanding of the exact consequences of what we are

doing should the nation make the decision to introduce a new class

of weapons—national missile defense interceptors—into the global

inventory of weapons.

231

SUMMARY

There are many good things in the bill that I support, such as

the pay raise for the troops and improved health care benefits for

both active duty and retired personnel. The 7.4 percent increase to

defense spending proposed in this bill is excessive. If the Republican majority were not insisting on slashing the President’s future

domestic requests for strengthening education, health care, and

science in order to provide huge multiyear tax promises, an additional $4 billion would be more defensible. But in this context, that

is extremely difficult. Unlike last year, the bill shows little evidence

of making major choices as we did last year with the F–22.

It is politically and economically irresponsible to the people

whom we represent to lead them to believe that our non-defense

programs can sustain huge reductions without threatening public

health and safety, and the economic prosperity on which the future

of American families depends. Our population will continue to

grow, our economy and social structures will continue to evolve and

become more complex, and our responsibilities as the world’s economic superpower will be great. That will require a more balanced

effort to address our domestic and international responsibilities

than the Congress has provided in the Appropriations bills it has

produced so far. That should be the priority for additional funding.

DAVE OBEY.

Æ